Sai,
When I have large numbers of inserts happening that I can't batch, I end up
funneling them through a method that enforces throttling with a Semaphore, so
something like:
// 10 permits, fair set to true
Semaphore throttle = new Semaphore(10, true);
void insertMethod(/* whatever params I need*/) {
throttle.acquire();
try {
// do insert stuff
}
finally {
throttle.release();
}
}
That way only 10 concurrent inserts at a time will happen (you can adjust this
accordingly) and it will not slam Derby quite so much. It's crude, but
effective if you need to avoid lock errors. Perhaps it will help you? It's
always better to batch inserts when you can though.
My inserts seem to work fine on their own, but when I have the resultset
iterating over the table's contents - a resultset that may be open for a minute
or more - with some deletes happening on items within that resultset it seems
the 'lock' issues rear their head with more frequency than I can afford.
-Ron
On Jan 29, 2010, at 8:14:12 AM, Sai Pullabhotla wrote:
> Ron,
>
> Even though I do not have a solution for your problem, I just wanted
> to let the community know I ran into the same issue. Essentially, I've
> Tomcat connection pool (DBCP) with 20 max connections connecting to
> Embedded Derby. Under heavy load (or during load testing), inserting
> and deleting concurrently from the same table resulted in numerous
> "Could not obtain lock" errors. The lock timeout was set to 1 min.,
> which I think should be enough. The table is not very huge either. The
> errors occur randomly both on inserts and deletes. After a while, none
> of these inserts and deletes seem to work (meaning all of them end up
> waiting for a lock, and give up after the lock timeout).
>
> Regards,
> Sai Pullabhotla
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Ronald Rudy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I hope you can help me with what's probably a basic question, but one I
>> haven't found an answer to elsewhere.
>>
>> I haven't used Derby extensively, but I do have experience with
>> multithreaded applications with MySQL. I've noticed some interesting but
>> surprising behavior with Derby I was hoping I could get around.
>>
>> Typically in my app I have a large number of inserts happening from multiple
>> threads as the system functions. I have another thread that runs
>> occasionally updating the status of these records based on queries to an
>> external source; this update may be a record update or a delete of the
>> record.
>>
>> Initially I had it set up so this "updating" thread was iterating over a
>> scroll insensitive updatable resultset, deleting/updating as needed. But
>> this resulted in a lot more blocking than I can afford: the inserts, which
>> happen frequently - up to say 5-8 a second at times - but nothing that seems
>> it should terribly overburden Derby, would block out the resultset from even
>> stepping to the first record. So instead I had it iterating over a
>> read-only resultset then separately deleting/updating records - with inserts
>> happening from various other threads all the while. (Each thread also has
>> its own pooled connection from DBCP)
>>
>> What I'm seeing is that under heavy load, I occasionally get "lock could not
>> be obtained.." exceptions. I could ramp up the lock timeout, but I feel
>> like this would be just kicking the problem down the road, and that there
>> shouldn't be any problem with what I'm doing.
>>
>> To this point, all the inserts are under autocommitting connections, and
>> there's really no way to batch those; they need to be inserted real-time. I
>> can try batching the updates/deletes from iterating over the resultset, but
>> I really would prefer (for requirements of my app) that these be performed
>> real-time. The only solution I've come up with so far is to select a "page"
>> of data to update at a time (like 100 records), then close that
>> resultset/statement and reselect the next "page". It's not critical that
>> the resultset I iterate over include all the data that's been inserted since
>> the initial query was ran, though it would be preferable I suppose.
>>
>> Any thoughts on what I might be doing wrong or what I can do to make this
>> work a little more reliably? Performance is important, but stability and
>> lower overhead is more important.
>>
>> -Ron
