Does thread-safety of SQLite3 mean different threads can modify the same table of a database concurrently?
No - SQLite does not support concurrent write access to the same database file. SQLite will simply block one of the transactions until the other one has finished.
note that if you're using python, to access a sqlite3 connection from different threads you need to disable the check_same_thread argument, e.g:
sqlite.connect(":memory:", check_same_thread = False)
as of the 24th of may 2010, the docs omit this option. the omission is listed as a bug here
Not necessarily. If sqlite3 is compiled with the thread safe macro (check via the int sqlite3_threadsafe(void) function), then you can try to access the same DB from multiple threads without the risk of corruption. Depending on the lock(s) required, however, you may or may not be able to actually modify data (I don't believe sqlite3 supports row locking, which means that to write, you'll need to get a table lock). However, you can try; if one threads blocks, then it will automatically write as soon as the other thread finishes with the DB.
You can use SQLite in 3 different modes:
http://www.sqlite.org/threadsafe.html
If you decide to multi-thread mode or serialized mode, you can easy use SQLite in multi-thread application.
In those situations you can read from all your threads simultaneously anyway. If you need to write simultaneously, the opened table will be lock automatycally for current writing thread and unlock after that (next thread will be waiting (mutex) for his turn until the table will be unlocked). In all those cases, you need to create separate connection string for every thread (.NET Data.Sqlite.dll). If you're using other implementation (e.g. any Android wrapper) sometimes the things are different.
Related
Per the documentation:
ON COMMIT DROP: The temporary table will be dropped at the end of the current transaction block.
However, temporary tables are unique per session, not per thread: see here
My question:
If a temp table is marked WITH ON COMMIT DROP, how will PG handle multiple threads accessing that table as regards the fact any thread could commit, but the table couldn't be dropped as it's in use by other threads.
Edit:
AFAIK, multiple transactions can run within one session. If this is the case, more than one transaction could access a function that has a temp table, hence my question.
Postgres (server) knows nothing about client threads. It sees a session as a consecutive series of commands grouped in transactions. From the server's point of view concurrency inside a session is impossible.
A client application may be multi-threaded and threads can use the same connection. An application developer is responsible for ensuring that threads do not compete with each other for access to server resources. From the documentation:
One thread restriction is that no two threads attempt to manipulate the same PGconn object at the same time. In particular, you cannot issue concurrent commands from different threads through the same connection object. (If you need to run concurrent commands, use multiple connections.)
I can't Access database with multithread. It's Exception database is locked or database is busy. I dont understand why database is locked when I read or write in different table.
I try code below to multithread
SQLite3.Config(SQLite3.ConfigOption.MultiThread);
It's not working. Anyone know? I need it so much!
If you have multi threaded application, then both thread have the liberty to update the DB. But inside DB, The first update will take lock on the rows you are trying to update, and if the second update also tries to work on the locked rows, then you have the possibility of getting "locked" or "busy", if the first update request take more the x amount of time, where "x" is configurable.
From the SQLite web site:
SQLite supports an unlimited number of simultaneous readers, but it will only allow one writer at any instant in time. For many situations, this is not a problem. Writer queue up. Each application does its database work quickly and moves on, and no lock lasts for more than a few dozen milliseconds. But there are some applications that require more concurrency, and those applications may need to seek a different solution.
So, you could use SQL from different threads for reading, but not for writing concurrently. There are many answers for this in stackoverflow. See for instance: How to use SQLite in a multi-threaded application?
I am new to Qt development, the way it handles threads (signals and slots) and databases (and SQLite at that). It has been 4 weeks that I have started working on the mentioned technologies. This is the first time I'm posting a question on SO and I feel I have done research before coming to you all. This may look a little long and possibly a duplicate, but I request you all to read it thoroughly once before dismissing it off as a duplicate or tl;dr.
Context:
I am working on a Windows application that performs a certain operation X on a database. The application is developed in Qt and uses QSQLite as database engine. It's a single threaded application, i.e., the tables are processed sequentially. However, as the DB size grows (in number of tables and records), this processing becomes slower. The result of this operation X is written in a separate results table in the same DB. The processing being done is immaterial to the problem, but in basic terms here's what it does:
Read a row from Table_X_1
Read a row from Table_X_2
Do some operations on the rows (only read)
Push the results in Table_X_Results table (this is the only write being performed on the DB)
Table_X_1 and Table_X_2 are identical in number and types of columns and number of rows, only the data may differ.
What I'm trying to do:
In order to improve the performance, I am trying to make the application multi-threaded. Initially I am spawning two threads (using QtConcurrentRun). The two tables can be categorized in two types, say A and B. Each thread will take care of the tables of two types. Processing within the threads remains same, i.e., within each thread the tables are being processed sequentially.
The function is such that it uses SELECT to fetch rows for processing and INSERT to insert result in results table. For inserting the results I am using transactions.
I am creating all the intermediate tables, result tables and indices before starting my actual operation. I am opening and closing connections everytime. For the threads, I create and open a connection before entering the loop (one for each thread).
THE PROBLEM:
Inside my processing function, I get following (nasty, infamous, stubborn) error:
QSqlError(5, "Unable to fetch row", "database is locked")
I am getting this error when I'm trying to read a row from DB (using SELECT). This is in the same function in which I'm performing my INSERTs into results table. The SELECT and the INSERT are in the same transaction (begin and commit pair). For INSERT I'm using prepared statement (SQLiteStatement).
Reasons for seemingly peculiar things that I am doing:
I am using QtConcurrentRun to create the threads because it is straightforward to do! I have tried using QThread (not subclassing QThread, but the other method). That also leads to same problem.
I am compiling with DSQLITE_THREADSAFE=0 to avoid application from crashing. If I use the default (DSQLITE_THREADSAFE=1), my application crashes at SQLiteStatement::recordSet->Reset(). Also, with the default option, internal SQLITE sync mechanism comes into play which may not be reliable. If the need be, I'll employ explicit sync.
Making the application multi-threaded to improve performance, and not doing this. I'm taking care of all the optimizations recommended there.
Using QSqlDatabase::setConnectOptions with QSQLITE_BUSY_TIMEOUT=0. A link suggested that it will prevent the DB to get locked immediately and hence may give my thread(s) appropriate amount of time to "die peacefully". This failed: the DB got locked much frequently than before.
Observations:
The database goes into lock only and as soon as when one of the threads return. This behavior is consistent.
When compiling with DSQLITE_THREADSAFE=1, the application crashes when one of the threads return. Call stack points at SQLiteStatement::recordSet->Reset() in my function, and at winMutexEnter() (called from EnterCriticalSection()) in sqlite3.c. This is consistent as well.
The threads created using QtConcurrentRun do not die immediately.
If I use QThreads, I can't get them to return. That is to say, I feel the thread never returns even though I have connected the signals and the slots correctly. What is the correct way to wait for threads and how long it takes them to die?
The thread that finishes execution never returns, it has locked the DB and hence the error.
I checked for SQLITE_BUSY and tried to make the thread sleep but could not get it to work. What is the correct way to sleep in Qt (for threads created with QtConcurrentRun or QThreads)?
When I close my connections, I get this warning:
QSqlDatabasePrivate::removeDatabase: connection 'DB_CONN_CREATE_RESULTS' is still in use, all queries will cease to work.
Is this of any significance? Some links suggested that this warning arises because of using local QSqlDatabase, and will not arise if the connection is made a class member. However, could it be the reason for my problem?
Further experiments:
I am thinking of creating another database which will only contain results table (Table_X_Results). The rationale is that while the threads will read from one DB (the one that I have currently), they will get to write to another DB. However, I may still face the same problem. Moreover, I read on the forums and wikis that it IS possible to have two threads doing read and write on same DB. So why can I not get this scenario to work?
I am currently using SQLITE version 3.6.17. Could that be the problem? Will things be better if I used version 3.8.5?
I was trying to post the web resources that I have already explored, but I get a message saying "I'd need 10 reps to post more than 2 links". Any help/suggestions would be much appreciated.
Actually I am using visual C++ to try to bind lua functions as callbacks for socket events(in another thread). I initialize the lua stuff in one thread and the socket is in another thread, so every time the socket sends/receives a message, it will call the lua function and the lua function determines what it should do according to the 'tag' within the message.
So my questions are:
Since I pass the same Lua state to lua functions, is that safe? Doesn't it need some kinda protection? The lua functions are called from another thead so I guess they might be called simultaneously.
If it is not safe, what's the solution for this case?
It is not safe to call back asynchronously into a Lua state.
There are many approaches to dealing with this. The most popular involve some kind of polling.
A recent generic synchronization library is DarkSideSync
A popular Lua binding to libev is lua-ev
This SO answer recommends Lua Lanes with LuaSocket.
It is not safe to call function within one Lua state simultaneously in multiple threads.
I was dealing with the same problem, since in my application all basics such as communication are handled by C++ and all the business logic is implemented in Lua. What I do is create a pool of Lua states that are all created and initialised on an incremental basis (once there's not enough states, create one and initialise with common functions / objects). It works like this:
Once a connection thread needs to call a Lua function, it checks out an instance of Lua state, initialises specific globals (I call it a thread / connection context) in a separate (proxy) global table that prevents polluting the original global, but is indexed by the original global
Call a Lua function
Check the Lua state back in to the pool, where it is restored to the "ready" state (dispose of the proxy global table)
I think this approach would be well suited for your case as well. The pool checks each state (on an interval basis) when it was last checked out. When the time difference is big enough, it destroys the state to preserve resources and adjust the number of active states to current server load. The state that is checked out is the most recently used among the available states.
There are some things you need to consider when implementing such a pool:
Each state needs to be populated with the same variables and global functions, which increases memory consumption.
Implementing an upper limit for state count in the pool
Ensuring all the globals in each state are in a consistent state, if they happen to change (here I would recommend prepopulating only static globals, while populating dynamic ones when checking out a state)
Dynamic loading of functions. In my case there are many thousands of functions / procedures that can be called in Lua. Having them constantly loaded in all states would be a huge waste. So instead I keep them byte code compiled on the C++ side and have them loaded when needed. It turns out not to impact performance that much in my case, but your mileage may vary. One thing to keep in mind is to load them only once. Say you invoke a script that needs to call another dynamically loaded function in a loop. Then you should load the function as a local once before the loop. Doing it otherwise would be a huge performance hit.
Of course this is just one idea, but one that turned out to be best suited for me.
It's not safe, as the others mentioned
Depends on your usecase
Simplest solution is using a global lock using the lua_lock and lua_unlock macros. That would use a single Lua state, locked by a single mutex. For a low number of callbacks it might suffice, but for higher traffic it probably won't due to the overhead incurred.
Once you need better performance, the Lua state pool as mentioned by W.B. is a nice way to handle this. Trickiest part here I find synchronizing the global data across the multiple states.
DarkSideSync, mentioned by Doug, is useful in cases where the main application loop resides on the Lua side. I specifically wrote it for that purpose. In your case this doesn't seem a fit. Having said that; depending on your needs, you might consider changing your application so the main loop does reside on the Lua side. If you only handle sockets, then you can use LuaSocket and no synchronization is required at all. But obviously that depends on what else the application does.
I have a project where i should use multiple tables to avoid keeping dublicated data in my sqlite file(Even though i knew usage of several tables was nightmare).
In my application i am reading data from one table in some method and inserting data into another table in some other method. When i do this i am getting from sqlite step function, error code 21 which is sqlite misuse.
Accoding to my researches that was because i was not able to reach tables from multi threads.
Up to now, i read the sqlite website and learned that there are 3 modes to configurate sqlite database:
1) singlethread: you have no chances to call several threads.
2) multithread: yeah multi thread; but there are some obstacles.
3) serialized: this is the best match with multithread database applications.
if sqlite3_threadsafe() == 2 returns true then yes your sqlite database is serialized and this returned true, so i proved it for myself.
then i have a code to configurate my sqlite database for serialized to take it under guarantee.
sqlite3_config(SQLITE_CONFIG_SERIALIZED);
when i use above codes in class where i read and insert data from 1 table works perfectly :). But if i try to use it in class where i read and insert data from 2 tables (actually where i really need it) problem sqlite misuse comes up.
I checked my code where i open and close database, there is no problem with them. they work unless i delete the other.
I am using ios5 and this is really a big problem for my project. i heard that instagram uses postgresql may be this was the reason ha? Would you suggest postgresql or sqlite at first?
It seems to me like you've got two things mixed up.
Single vs. multi-threaded
Single threaded builds are only ever safe to use from one thread of your code because they lack the mechanisms (mutexes, critical sections, etc.) internally that permit safe use from several. If you are using multiple threads, use a multi-threaded build (or expect “interesting” trouble; you have been warned).
SQLite's thread support is pretty simple. With a multi-threaded build, particular connections should only be used from a single thread (except that they can be initially opened in another).
All recent (last few years?) SQLite builds are happy with access to a single database from multiple processes, but the degree of parallelism depends on the…
Transaction type
SQL in general supports multiple types of transaction. SQLite supports only a subset of them, and its default is SERIALIZABLE. This is the safest mode of access; it simulates what you would see if only one thing could happen at a time. (Internally, it's implemented using a scheme that lets many readers in at once, but only one writer; there's some cleverness to prevent anyone from starving anyone else.)
SQLite also supports read-uncommitted transactions. This increases the amount of parallelism available to code, but at the risk of readers seeing information that's not yet been guaranteed to persist. Whether this matters to you depends on your application.