Yes source of those quotes would be great please...

Still not sure thats my issue, I'm not changing the isolation level WITHIN
a transaction, rather consecutive transactions use different levels.

/*
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @simonmfox
Phone: +64 21 079 2900
*/



On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, TheCPUWizard <[email protected]> wrote:

> These factors could be involved:****
>
> ** **
>
> "Only one of the isolation level options can be set at a time, and it
> remains set for that connection until it is explicitly changed."****
>
> "With one exception, you can switch from one isolation level to another at
> any time during a transaction."****
>
> "When you change a transaction from one isolation level to another,
> resources that are read after the change are protected according to the
> rules of the new level. "****
>
> "If you issue SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL in a stored procedure or
> trigger, when the object returns control the isolation level is reset to
> the level in effect when the object was invoked."****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On
> Behalf Of *Simon Fox
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:13 PM
>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [nhusers] nolock, Read Uncommitted and sp_executesql****
>
> ** **
>
> The transaction in question is the second I have created from the session,
> with the previous transaction using ReadCommitted (not specified, i.e. I
> use _session.BeginTransaction() and ReadCommitted is default). I have
> assumed this won't have an effect??****
>
>
> /*
> Email: [email protected]****
>
> Twitter: @simonmfox
> Phone: +64 21 079 2900
> */****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Simon Fox <[email protected]> wrote:**
> **
>
> No, ****
>
> ** **
>
> SELECT snapshot_isolation_state_desc from sys.databases ****
>
> where name='MyDB'****
>
> ** **
>
> returns OFF****
>
> ** **
>
> /*
> Email: [email protected]****
>
> Twitter: @simonmfox
> Phone: +64 21 079 2900
> */****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:01 PM, TheCPUWizard <[email protected]>
> wrote:****
>
> Is it possible you have Snapshot isolation enabled?****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On
> Behalf Of *Simon Fox
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:17 PM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [nhusers] nolock, Read Uncommitted and sp_executesql****
>
>  ****
>
> Now I'm really confused, can someone please explain why when this line of
> code executes****
>
>  ****
>
> using (var transaction = _session.Transaction.Begin(*
> IsolationLevel.ReadUncommitted*))****
>
>  ****
>
> SQL profiler logs the following****
>
>  ****
>
> -- network protocol: LPC****
>
> set quoted_identifier on****
>
> set arithabort off****
>
> set numeric_roundabort off****
>
> set ansi_warnings on****
>
> set ansi_padding on****
>
> set ansi_nulls on****
>
> set concat_null_yields_null on****
>
> set cursor_close_on_commit off****
>
> set implicit_transactions off****
>
> set language us_english****
>
> set dateformat mdy****
>
> set datefirst 7****
>
> *set transaction isolation level read committed*****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks****
>
> Simon****
>
>  ****
>
> /*
> Email: [email protected]****
>
> Twitter: @simonmfox
> Phone: +64 21 079 2900
> */****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Simon Fox <[email protected]> wrote:**
> **
>
> Yes so did, that is what makes me think that sp_executesql is not
> honouring the isolation level of the transaction I have wrapped my query in.
> ****
>
>  ****
>
> When running the exact sql NH executes from a command line (wrapped in
> Read Uncommitted transaction) app I see the same timeout issue. However if
> I put nolock in to the query there is no timeout, and if I pull the query
> out of sp_executesql and replace the placeholders with their actual values
> the query runs fine as well...****
>
>  ****
>
> I'm stumped, can't find much info on sp_executesql, but I'm assuming it is
> the problem.****
>
>
> /*
> Email: [email protected]****
>
> Twitter: @simonmfox
> Phone: +64 21 079 2900
> */****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Rodrigo Silva de Andrade <
> [email protected]> wrote:****
>
> i thought read uncommitted and nolock had the same effect****
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Simon Fox <[email protected]> wrote:*
> ***
>
> Hi All****
>
>  ****
>
> We have recently found that a combination of where clause parameters
> (which results in minimal filtering) on one of our queries is resulting in
> sql timeouts in our application.****
>
>  ****
>
> We are happy to do dirty reads in this situation and so I initially just
> wrapped the query in a ReadUncommitted transaction...but the timeouts kept
> happening for this specific clause.****
>
>  ****
>
> Next thing I did was write a simple little console app to execute the same
> query that NHibernate was generating which confirmed that it wasn't some
> other issue within our application or the web server.****
>
>  ****
>
> What in did make the query work without timeout was explictly adding
> nolock hints to the query generated by NHibernate and pumping that through
> my console app.****
>
>  ****
>
> So I have a couple of queries really. First a more general query about
> sp_executesql (as I believed and currently still do believe that nolock
> hints and Read Uncommitted have the same effect), does this SP use the
> database default transaction isolation level and even though I have wrapped
> the query in a Read Uncommitted transaction it is falling back to Read
> Committed thus causing the timeout.****
>
>  ****
>
> The query NHibernate generates is via ICriteria, I can't seem to find a
> way to get nolock hints added to that query. Is there a way I can get a
> query which includes nolock with ICriteria (without writing an
> interceptor)? Is there a way I can get NHibernate to issue the query
> outside of sp_executesql (because I believe that is ignoring my transaction
> isolation level)?****
>
>  ****
>
> Any other suggestions are welcomed.****
>
>  ****
>
> Thanks****
>
> Simon****
>
>
> /*
> Email: [email protected]****
>
> Twitter: @simonmfox
> Phone: +64 21 079 2900
> */****
>
>  ****
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "nhusers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.****
>
>  ****
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "nhusers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "nhusers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.****
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "nhusers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "nhusers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.****
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "nhusers" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"nhusers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers?hl=en.

Reply via email to