October 20, 2013 at 7:43 pm
I have an ASP.NET(code behind C#) web application and i need to lock a particular record when a user is in Edit mode. I know we can create a separate table which inserts the records that are being edited and we can check everytime when a user is trying to edit...
Any other better solutions???
October 20, 2013 at 11:10 pm
I think you're going to have issues doing this no matter how you choose to "lock" the records, because if the user closes the web form while a record is locked, it is likely to leave that record locked until you have some process come along and remove the lock.
A better way might be to simply warn the user/block the save if the record changed during their edit session by comparing the values retrieved to that user originally with the same values retrieved from the row just before the save.
My thought question: Have you ever been told that your query runs too fast?
My advice:
INDEXing a poor-performing query is like putting sugar on cat food. Yeah, it probably tastes better but are you sure you want to eat it?
The path of least resistance can be a slippery slope. Take care that fixing your fixes of fixes doesn't snowball and end up costing you more than fixing the root cause would have in the first place.
Need to UNPIVOT? Why not CROSS APPLY VALUES instead?[/url]
Since random numbers are too important to be left to chance, let's generate some![/url]
Learn to understand recursive CTEs by example.[/url]
[url url=http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/St
October 21, 2013 at 3:08 am
There's a bad way to accomplish that..
Just use XLOCK... XLOCK makes an exclusive lock to the record until the transaction is committed...
On c# you can:
1. begin transaction
2. SELECT 1 FROM tableToLock WITH (XLOCK) WHERE Id = @ID
3. do what ever you want....
4. commit transaction
But it's a risky thing to do...
Pedro
October 21, 2013 at 4:12 am
PiMané (10/21/2013)
There's a bad way to accomplish that..Just use XLOCK... XLOCK makes an exclusive lock to the record until the transaction is committed...
On c# you can:
1. begin transaction
2. SELECT 1 FROM tableToLock WITH (XLOCK) WHERE Id = @ID
3. do what ever you want....
4. commit transaction
But it's a risky thing to do...
Pedro
Sounds like you want to open a transaction when you read the record for update in the web form? Then keep that transaction open until the web form saves? What happens if they close the browser without saving?
Not sure how advisable that is.
My thought question: Have you ever been told that your query runs too fast?
My advice:
INDEXing a poor-performing query is like putting sugar on cat food. Yeah, it probably tastes better but are you sure you want to eat it?
The path of least resistance can be a slippery slope. Take care that fixing your fixes of fixes doesn't snowball and end up costing you more than fixing the root cause would have in the first place.
Need to UNPIVOT? Why not CROSS APPLY VALUES instead?[/url]
Since random numbers are too important to be left to chance, let's generate some![/url]
Learn to understand recursive CTEs by example.[/url]
[url url=http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/St
October 21, 2013 at 5:24 am
dwain.c (10/21/2013)
Sounds like you want to open a transaction when you read the record for update in the web form? Then keep that transaction open until the web form saves? What happens if they close the browser without saving?Not sure how advisable that is.
Thanks why I said it's risky and not advisable...
The transaction, when the browser closes, can also be closed or opened and closes on a timeout...
This has to be configured on the config file (app.config if application, web.config if web site)..
Pedro
October 21, 2013 at 6:37 am
dwain.c (10/21/2013)
Not sure how advisable that is.
It's strongly not recommended. Transactions should be started and committed/rolled back in a single trip to the database, not left open during user interaction. Doing so is asking for severe blocking and deadlock problems.
Worse than closing the browser, imagine if they leave the browser open (with the transaction open), go for a long lunch, don't look at the browser after lunch then go away for a long weekend.
Pradeep, one way you can do this is optimistic concurrency. Assume that in most cases someone else won't want to change the same record. Have the app check the column values when the edit starts and then check them again when the user's done. If there's a difference, then and only then alert the user that someone else has modified the same row they were working on and give them options on how to handle that.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
October 21, 2013 at 6:41 am
What I did in a situation where the user couldn't update data or if I wanted to update data changed was by "assuming" it was to add a column on each table named RecordVersion.
When the user reads the data gets version X.
If someone meanwhile reads and updates the data the version will be X+1.
When the 1st user sends the data a warning will be shown since the update requires RecordVersion = X and it's not.
He is warned that the data has been changed since he read it and if he wants to commit it anyway..
It requires a little more of database programming and the application but it's safer...
Pedro
October 21, 2013 at 6:49 am
You can do that, the row_version data type's great for that as you don't have to do manually update it. I've also seen people use a calculated column defined as Checksum(*)
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
October 21, 2013 at 7:30 am
GilaMonster (10/21/2013)
dwain.c (10/21/2013)
Not sure how advisable that is.It's strongly not recommended.
I was being polite. Not meaning that you're being rude of course. But you've got better creds than me to be so clear and pointed.
My thought question: Have you ever been told that your query runs too fast?
My advice:
INDEXing a poor-performing query is like putting sugar on cat food. Yeah, it probably tastes better but are you sure you want to eat it?
The path of least resistance can be a slippery slope. Take care that fixing your fixes of fixes doesn't snowball and end up costing you more than fixing the root cause would have in the first place.
Need to UNPIVOT? Why not CROSS APPLY VALUES instead?[/url]
Since random numbers are too important to be left to chance, let's generate some![/url]
Learn to understand recursive CTEs by example.[/url]
[url url=http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/St
October 21, 2013 at 9:27 am
dwain.c (10/21/2013)
GilaMonster (10/21/2013)
dwain.c (10/21/2013)
Not sure how advisable that is.It's strongly not recommended.
I was being polite.
So was I. 🙂
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
October 21, 2013 at 9:31 am
GilaMonster (10/21/2013)
You can do that, the row_version data type's great for that as you don't have to do manually update it. I've also seen people use a calculated column defined as Checksum(*)
Great tip.... I use to have simple audit information (Create user/date, Update user/date) and would utilize that information to tell me if some information was updated at the same time.
Kurt
Kurt W. Zimmerman
SR DBA
Lefrak Organization
New York, NY
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtwzimmerman
October 21, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Thanks for all valuable suggestions
Actually i like Rowversion Datatype option.Is it a new datatype in SQL(Couldn't find it from SSMS).The way i understand, it's almost similar to Timestamp
P.S: We already have Dateupdated column, so doesn't to create a new column if Rowversion is almost similar to DateTimestamp
October 21, 2013 at 4:14 pm
PradeepVallabh (10/21/2013)
The way i understand, it's almost similar to Timestamp
It is timestamp (renamed). It'll be there unless you're working with SQL 2000.
It's not a datetime, it's nothing to do with dates. It's a row version stamp. But you can use your dateupdated in much the same way as long as you can guarantee it's always changed when the row is updated.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply