Links
Home
Oracle DBA Forum
Frequent Oracle Errors
TNS:could not resolve the connect identifier specified
Backtrace message unwound by exceptions
invalid identifier
PL/SQL compilation error
internal error
missing expression
table or view does not exist
end-of-file on communication channel
TNS:listener unknown in connect descriptor
insufficient privileges
PL/SQL: numeric or value error string
TNS:protocol adapter error
ORACLE not available
target host or object does not exist
invalid number
unable to allocate string bytes of shared memory
resource busy and acquire with NOWAIT specified
error occurred at recursive SQL level string
ORACLE initialization or shutdown in progress
archiver error. Connect internal only, until freed
snapshot too old
unable to extend temp segment by string in tablespace
Credential retrieval failed
missing or invalid option
invalid username/password; logon denied
unable to create INITIAL extent for segment
out of process memory when trying to allocate string bytes
shared memory realm does not exist
cannot insert NULL
TNS:unable to connect to destination
remote database not found'>ora-02019
exception encountered: core dump
inconsistent datatypes
no data found
TNS:operation timed out
PL/SQL: could not find program
existing state of packages has been discarded
maximum number of processes exceeded
error signaled in parallel query server
ORACLE instance terminated. Disconnection forced
TNS:packet writer failure
see ORA-12699
missing right parenthesis
name is already used by an existing object
cannot identify/lock data file
invalid file operation
quoted string not properly terminated
Deadlock problem

Deadlock problem

2006-05-08       - By Bobak, Mark

Reply:     1     2     3     4     5     6     7     8     9     10  

Huh?

Sure, missing indexes on FKs can cause deadlocks.  Well, ok, not having
an index on a FK column on the child table does not inherently cause a
deadlock, but the absence of the index certainly increases the
likelihood of an enqueue wait (and possibly a deadlock) duing concurrent
DML.

-Mark


--
Mark J. Bobak
Senior Oracle Architect
ProQuest Information & Learning

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.  --Richard P. Feynman, 1918-1988



__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____

From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill@(protected)]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 2:06 PM
To: Bobak, Mark
Cc: Thomas.Mercadante@(protected); alever@(protected); Oracle
Freelists.org
Subject: Re: Deadlock problem


... which also do not cause deadocks.


On 5/8/06, oracle-l-bounce@(protected) < oracle-l-bounce@(protected)
<mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)> > wrote:

  If it were FKs that are missing indexes, waits would be on a TM
enqueue,
  not a TX enqueue.
 
  -Mark
 
 
  --
  Mark J. Bobak
  Senior Oracle Architect
  ProQuest Information & Learning
 
  For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public
  relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.  --Richard P. Feynman,
1918-1988
 
 
  -- --Original Message-- --
  From: oracle-l-bounce@(protected)
  [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)] On Behalf Of Mercadante,
Thomas F
  (LABOR)
  Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:51 PM
  To: alever@(protected); Oracle Freelists.org
  Subject: RE: Deadlock problem
 
  Allesandro,
 
  There were two theories concerning where a commit statement
should be
  issued from.
 
  The first theory I heard from Oracle when PL/SQL first came out
was that
  packages should not have commit statements in them - that the
  application should issue the commit when all of the pieces of
work were
  completed.  It was thought that the application would better
know when a
  commit should be issued.
 
  The other theory was to put all of the work in the PL/SQL
packages and
  let it control everything and either report back success
(commit) or
  failure (rollback) to the application.
 
  Today, either way works just fine in my view.
 
  As for your problem, dig a little deeper.  Most deadlocks that
I've seen
  are caused by foreign key constraints and missing indexes.  So
look at
  the tables involved and look for the table being updated being
  referenced by another table via a FK.  Simply adding indexes to
the
  foreign key columns solves this problem.
 
  And remember - this is an application problem.  Somebody might
have to
  fix some code!
 
  Good Luck.
 
  Tom
 
  -- --Original Message-- --
  From: oracle-l-bounce@(protected)
  [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)] On Behalf Of Alessandro
Vercelli
  Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:34 PM
  To: Oracle Freelists.org
  Subject: Deadlock problem
 
  Hi all,
  I'm trying to solve an ora-4020 (See ora-4020.ora-code.com) (deadlock) issue; the trace file
(sorry
  if messed) shows:
 
  ksqded1:  deadlock detected via did
  DEADLOCK DETECTED
  Current SQL statement for this session:
  Update <TABLE> set <FIELD1>='<VALUE>' where <FIELD2> like
'<STRING>%'
  The following deadlock is not an ORACLE error. It is a deadlock
due to
  user error in the design of an application or from issuing
incorrect
  ad-hoc SQL. The following information may aid in determining the
  deadlock:
  Deadlock graph:
                        -- ------Blocker(s)-- -----
  -- ------Waiter(s)-- ------
  Resource Name          process session holds waits  process
session
  holds waits
  TX-00040015-0000305b        13      11     X             10
14
  X
  TX-0007000b-0000309e        10      14     X             13
11
  X
  session 11: DID 0001-000D-00000001      session 14: DID
  0001-000A-00000001
  session 14: DID 0001-000A-00000001      session 11: DID
  0001-000D-00000001
  Rows waited on:
  Session 14: obj - rowid = 0000147E - AAABR+AAKAAAAJIAAH Session
11: obj
  - rowid = 0000147E - AAABR+AAKAAAzEeAAH
 
  The trace file shows clearly that session 11 and 14 are blocking
each
  other.
 
  Note that <STRING> can be very long, but it's almost certain
that this
  is not causing the problem.
 
  Database version is 8.0.5 on Solaris 8 sparc.
 
  So, I'm looking at the piece of source containing the affected
code (I'm
  not the developer neither a skilled one) and I have seen
something
  strange, that is a sql package containing many procedures with
  insert/update statements and none of these insert/update was
followed by
  a commit; I asked the developer for this matter and she said
that a
  commit would prevent a possible rollback of database
transaction.
 
  Now, my questions are:
  1. Is it correct an insert/update without a commit into a sql
package?
  If yes, when are the inserted/updated data commited?
  2. Would this the possible cause of the deadclock, as the table
indexes
  could be locked by a large number of records inserted/updated?
  3. Is this the correct way to get the choice of performing a
rollback?
 
 
  Thanks for you help,
 
  Alessandro
 
  --
  http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
 
 
  --
  http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
 
 
  --
  http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
 
 
 




--
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=906310618-08052006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Huh?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906310618-08052006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906310618-08052006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Sure,
missing indexes on FKs can cause deadlocks.&nbsp; Well, ok, not having an index
on a FK column on the child table does not inherently cause a deadlock, but the
absence of the index certainly increases the likelihood of an enqueue wait (and
possibly a deadlock) duing concurrent DML.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906310618-08052006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=906310618-08052006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>-Mark</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><B><FONT face="Century Gothic" size=2>--</FONT></B> <BR><B><FONT
face="Century Gothic" size=2>Mark J. Bobak</FONT></B> <BR><B><FONT
face="Century Gothic" size=2>Senior Oracle Architect</FONT></B> <BR><B><FONT
face="Century Gothic" color=#000000 size=2>P</FONT><FONT face="Century Gothic"
size=2>ro</FONT><FONT face="Century Gothic" color=#ff0000 size=2>Q</FONT><FONT
face="Century Gothic" size=2>uest Information &amp; Learning</FONT></B> </P>
<P><FONT face="Courier New" size=2>For a successful technology, reality must
take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.&nbsp;
--Richard P. Feynman, 1918-1988</FONT></P>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Jared Still [mailto:jkstill@(protected)]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, May 08, 2006 2:06 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Bobak,
Mark<BR><B>Cc:</B> Thomas.Mercadante@(protected); alever@(protected);
Oracle
Freelists.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Deadlock problem<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>... which also do not cause deadocks.<BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 5/8/06, <B class=gmail_sendername><A
href="mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)">oracle-l-bounce@(protected)</A><
/B>
&lt;<A href="mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)">
oracle-l-bounce@(protected)</A>&gt; wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204
,204) 1px solid">If
 it were FKs that are missing indexes, waits would be on a TM enqueue, <BR>not
 a TX enqueue.<BR><BR>-Mark<BR><BR><BR>--<BR>Mark J. Bobak<BR>Senior Oracle
 Architect<BR>ProQuest Information &amp; Learning<BR><BR>For a successful
 technology, reality must take precedence over public<BR>relations, for Nature
 cannot be fooled.&nbsp;&nbsp;--Richard P. Feynman, 1918-1988
 <BR><BR><BR>-- --Original Message-- --<BR>From: <A
 href="mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)">oracle-l-bounce@(protected)</A>
<BR>[mailto:<A
 href="mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)">oracle-l-bounce@(protected)</A>
]
 On Behalf Of Mercadante, Thomas F <BR>(LABOR)<BR>Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006
 1:51 PM<BR>To: <A href="mailto:alever@(protected)">alever@(protected)</A>; Oracle
 <A href="http://Freelists.org">Freelists.org</A><BR>Subject: RE: Deadlock
 problem<BR><BR>Allesandro,<BR><BR>There were two theories concerning where a
 commit statement should be<BR>issued from.<BR><BR>The first theory I heard
 from Oracle when PL/SQL first came out was that<BR>packages should not have
 commit statements in them - that the <BR>application should issue the commit
 when all of the pieces of work were<BR>completed.&nbsp;&nbsp;It was thought
 that the application would better know when a<BR>commit should be
 issued.<BR><BR>The other theory was to put all of the work in the PL/SQL
 packages and <BR>let it control everything and either report back success
 (commit) or<BR>failure (rollback) to the application.<BR><BR>Today, either
way
 works just fine in my view.<BR><BR>As for your problem, dig a little
 deeper.&nbsp;&nbsp;Most deadlocks that I've seen <BR>are caused by foreign
key
 constraints and missing indexes.&nbsp;&nbsp;So look at<BR>the tables involved
 and look for the table being updated being<BR>referenced by another table via
 a FK.&nbsp;&nbsp;Simply adding indexes to the<BR>foreign key columns solves
 this problem. <BR><BR>And remember - this is an application
 problem.&nbsp;&nbsp;Somebody might have to<BR>fix some code!<BR><BR>Good
 Luck.<BR><BR>Tom<BR><BR>-- --Original Message-- --<BR>From: <A
 href="mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)">oracle-l-bounce@(protected)
 </A><BR>[mailto:<A
 href="mailto:oracle-l-bounce@(protected)">oracle-l-bounce@(protected)</A>
]
 On Behalf Of Alessandro Vercelli<BR>Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:34 PM<BR>To:
 Oracle <A href="http://Freelists.org">Freelists.org </A><BR>Subject: Deadlock
 problem<BR><BR>Hi all,<BR>I'm trying to solve an ora-4020 (See ora-4020.ora-code.com) (deadlock) issue;
 the trace file (sorry<BR>if messed) shows:<BR><BR>ksqded1:&nbsp;&nbsp
;deadlock
 detected via did<BR>DEADLOCK DETECTED<BR>Current SQL statement for this
 session: <BR>Update &lt;TABLE&gt; set &lt;FIELD1&gt;='&lt;VALUE&gt;' where
 &lt;FIELD2&gt; like '&lt;STRING&gt;%'<BR>The following deadlock is not an
 ORACLE error. It is a deadlock due to<BR>user error in the design of an
 application or from issuing incorrect <BR>ad-hoc SQL. The following
 information may aid in determining the<BR>deadlock:<BR>Deadlock
 graph:<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 -- ------Blocker(s)-- -----<BR>-- ------Waiter(s)-- ------<BR>Resource
 Name&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;process
 session holds waits&nbsp;&nbsp;process session <BR>holds
 waits<BR>TX-00040015-0000305b&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp
;13&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 X&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;14<BR>X<BR>TX-0007000b-0000309e&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp
;14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 X&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
 13&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;11<BR>X<BR>session 11: DID
 0001-000D-00000001&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;session 14: DID
 <BR>0001-000A-00000001<BR>session 14: DID
 0001-000A-00000001&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;session 11:
 DID<BR>0001-000D-00000001<BR>Rows waited on:<BR>Session 14: obj - rowid =
 0000147E - AAABR+AAKAAAAJIAAH Session 11: obj<BR>- rowid = 0000147E -
 AAABR+AAKAAAzEeAAH <BR><BR>The trace file shows clearly that session 11 and
14
 are blocking each<BR>other.<BR><BR>Note that &lt;STRING&gt; can be very long,
 but it's almost certain that this<BR>is not causing the
 problem.<BR><BR>Database version is 8.0.5 on Solaris 8 sparc.<BR><BR>So, I'm
 looking at the piece of source containing the affected code (I'm<BR>not the
 developer neither a skilled one) and I have seen something<BR>strange, that
is
 a sql package containing many procedures with <BR>insert/update statements
and
 none of these insert/update was followed by<BR>a commit; I asked the
developer
 for this matter and she said that a<BR>commit would prevent a possible
 rollback of database transaction.<BR><BR>Now, my questions are:<BR>1. Is it
 correct an insert/update without a commit into a sql package?<BR>If yes, when
 are the inserted/updated data commited?<BR>2. Would this the possible cause
of
 the deadclock, as the table indexes <BR>could be locked by a large number of
 records inserted/updated?<BR>3. Is this the correct way to get the choice of
 performing a rollback?<BR><BR><BR>Thanks for you
 help,<BR><BR>Alessandro<BR><BR>--<BR><A
 href="http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l">http://www.freelists.org
/webpage/oracle-l</A><BR><BR><BR>--<BR><A
 href="http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l">http://www.freelists.org
/webpage/oracle-l</A><BR><BR><BR>--<BR><A
 href="http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l">http://www.freelists.org
/webpage/oracle-l</A><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Jared Still<BR>Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl
Evangelist<BR></BODY></HTML>