8.11.1 Internal Locking Methods

MySQL uses row-level locking for InnoDB tables to support simultaneous write access by multiple sessions, making them suitable for multi-user, highly concurrent, and OLTP applications.

To avoid deadlocks when performing multiple concurrent write operations on a single InnoDB table, acquire necessary locks at the start of the transaction by issuing a SELECT ... FOR UPDATE statement for each group of rows expected to be modified, even if the data change statements come later in the transaction. If transactions modify or lock more than one table, issue the applicable statements in the same order within each transaction. Deadlocks affect performance rather than representing a serious error, because InnoDB automatically detects deadlock conditions by default and rolls back one of the affected transactions.

On high concurrency systems, deadlock detection can cause a slowdown when numerous threads wait for the same lock. At times, it may be more efficient to disable deadlock detection and rely on the innodb_lock_wait_timeout setting for transaction rollback when a deadlock occurs. Deadlock detection can be disabled using the innodb_deadlock_detect configuration option.

Advantages of row-level locking:

MySQL uses table-level locking for MyISAM, MEMORY, and MERGE tables, permitting only one session to update those tables at a time. This locking level makes these storage engines more suitable for read-only, read-mostly, or single-user applications.

These storage engines avoid deadlocks by always requesting all needed locks at once at the beginning of a query and always locking the tables in the same order. The tradeoff is that this strategy reduces concurrency; other sessions that want to modify the table must wait until the current data change statement finishes.

Advantages of table-level locking:

MySQL grants table write locks as follows:

MySQL grants table read locks as follows:

Table updates are given higher priority than table retrievals. Therefore, when a lock is released, the lock is made available to the requests in the write lock queue and then to the requests in the read lock queue. This ensures that updates to a table are not “starved” even when there is heavy SELECT activity for the table. However, if there are many updates for a table, SELECT statements wait until there are no more updates.

For information on altering the priority of reads and writes, see Section 8.11.2, “Table Locking Issues”.

You can analyze the table lock contention on your system by checking the Table_locks_immediate and Table_locks_waited status variables, which indicate the number of times that requests for table locks could be granted immediately and the number that had to wait, respectively:

The Performance Schema lock tables also provide locking information. See Section 26.12.12, “Performance Schema Lock Tables”.

The MyISAM storage engine supports concurrent inserts to reduce contention between readers and writers for a given table: If a MyISAM table has no free blocks in the middle of the data file, rows are always inserted at the end of the data file. In this case, you can freely mix concurrent INSERT and SELECT statements for a MyISAM table without locks. That is, you can insert rows into a MyISAM table at the same time other clients are reading from it. Holes can result from rows having been deleted from or updated in the middle of the table. If there are holes, concurrent inserts are disabled but are enabled again automatically when all holes have been filled with new data. To control this behavior, use the concurrent_insert system variable. See Section 8.11.3, “Concurrent Inserts”.

If you acquire a table lock explicitly with LOCK TABLES, you can request a READ LOCAL lock rather than a READ lock to enable other sessions to perform concurrent inserts while you have the table locked.

To perform many INSERT and SELECT operations on a table t1 when concurrent inserts are not possible, you can insert rows into a temporary table temp_t1 and update the real table with the rows from the temporary table:

Generally, table locks are superior to row-level locks in the following cases:

With higher-level locks, you can more easily tune applications by supporting locks of different types, because the lock overhead is less than for row-level locks.

Options other than row-level locking: