Rechercher dans le manuel MySQL
8.11.2 Table Locking Issues
InnoDB
tables use row-level locking so that
multiple sessions and applications can read from and write to
the same table simultaneously, without making each other wait or
producing inconsistent results. For this storage engine, avoid
using the LOCK TABLES
statement,
because it does not offer any extra protection, but instead
reduces concurrency. The automatic row-level locking makes these
tables suitable for your busiest databases with your most
important data, while also simplifying application logic since
you do not need to lock and unlock tables. Consequently, the
InnoDB
storage engine is the default in
MySQL.
MySQL uses table locking (instead of page, row, or column
locking) for all storage engines except
InnoDB
. The locking operations themselves do
not have much overhead. But because only one session can write
to a table at any one time, for best performance with these
other storage engines, use them primarily for tables that are
queried often and rarely inserted into or updated.
Performance Considerations Favoring InnoDB
When choosing whether to create a table using
InnoDB
or a different storage engine, keep
in mind the following disadvantages of table locking:
Table locking enables many sessions to read from a table at the same time, but if a session wants to write to a table, it must first get exclusive access, meaning it might have to wait for other sessions to finish with the table first. During the update, all other sessions that want to access this particular table must wait until the update is done.
Table locking causes problems when a session is waiting because the disk is full and free space needs to become available before the session can proceed. In this case, all sessions that want to access the problem table are also put in a waiting state until more disk space is made available.
A
SELECT
statement that takes a long time to run prevents other sessions from updating the table in the meantime, making the other sessions appear slow or unresponsive. While a session is waiting to get exclusive access to the table for updates, other sessions that issueSELECT
statements will queue up behind it, reducing concurrency even for read-only sessions.
The following items describe some ways to avoid or reduce contention caused by table locking:
Consider switching the table to the
InnoDB
storage engine, either usingCREATE TABLE ... ENGINE=INNODB
during setup, or usingALTER TABLE ... ENGINE=INNODB
for an existing table. See Chapter 15, The InnoDB Storage Engine for more details about this storage engine.Optimize
SELECT
statements to run faster so that they lock tables for a shorter time. You might have to create some summary tables to do this.Start mysqld with
--low-priority-updates
. For storage engines that use only table-level locking (such asMyISAM
,MEMORY
, andMERGE
), this gives all statements that update (modify) a table lower priority thanSELECT
statements. In this case, the secondSELECT
statement in the preceding scenario would execute before theUPDATE
statement, and would not wait for the firstSELECT
to finish.To specify that all updates issued in a specific connection should be done with low priority, set the
low_priority_updates
server system variable equal to 1.To give a specific
INSERT
,UPDATE
, orDELETE
statement lower priority, use theLOW_PRIORITY
attribute.To give a specific
SELECT
statement higher priority, use theHIGH_PRIORITY
attribute. See Section 13.2.10, “SELECT Syntax”.Start mysqld with a low value for the
max_write_lock_count
system variable to force MySQL to temporarily elevate the priority of allSELECT
statements that are waiting for a table after a specific number of inserts to the table occur. This permitsREAD
locks after a certain number ofWRITE
locks.If you have problems with
INSERT
combined withSELECT
, consider switching toMyISAM
tables, which support concurrentSELECT
andINSERT
statements. (See Section 8.11.3, “Concurrent Inserts”.)If you have problems with mixed
SELECT
andDELETE
statements, theLIMIT
option toDELETE
may help. See Section 13.2.2, “DELETE Syntax”.Using
SQL_BUFFER_RESULT
withSELECT
statements can help to make the duration of table locks shorter. See Section 13.2.10, “SELECT Syntax”.Splitting table contents into separate tables may help, by allowing queries to run against columns in one table, while updates are confined to columns in a different table.
You could change the locking code in
mysys/thr_lock.c
to use a single queue. In this case, write locks and read locks would have the same priority, which might help some applications.
Nederlandse vertaling
U hebt gevraagd om deze site in het Nederlands te bezoeken. Voor nu wordt alleen de interface vertaald, maar nog niet alle inhoud.Als je me wilt helpen met vertalingen, is je bijdrage welkom. Het enige dat u hoeft te doen, is u op de site registreren en mij een bericht sturen waarin u wordt gevraagd om u toe te voegen aan de groep vertalers, zodat u de gewenste pagina's kunt vertalen. Een link onderaan elke vertaalde pagina geeft aan dat u de vertaler bent en heeft een link naar uw profiel.
Bij voorbaat dank.
Document heeft de 26/06/2006 gemaakt, de laatste keer de 26/10/2018 gewijzigd
Bron van het afgedrukte document:https://www.gaudry.be/nl/mysql-rf-table-locking.html
De infobrol is een persoonlijke site waarvan de inhoud uitsluitend mijn verantwoordelijkheid is. De tekst is beschikbaar onder CreativeCommons-licentie (BY-NC-SA). Meer info op de gebruiksvoorwaarden en de auteur.
Referenties
Deze verwijzingen en links verwijzen naar documenten die geraadpleegd zijn tijdens het schrijven van deze pagina, of die aanvullende informatie kunnen geven, maar de auteurs van deze bronnen kunnen niet verantwoordelijk worden gehouden voor de inhoud van deze pagina.
De auteur Deze site is als enige verantwoordelijk voor de manier waarop de verschillende concepten, en de vrijheden die met de referentiewerken worden genomen, hier worden gepresenteerd. Vergeet niet dat u meerdere broninformatie moet doorgeven om het risico op fouten te verkleinen.