Hi Arne,

a correction is submitted in 73,743,744 and will be available in the next builds
or you can check it out via cvs for V74-develop tonight.
regards
Uwe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hahn, Uwe 
> Sent: Dienstag, 18. Februar 2003 10:36
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Row not found by secondary key when simultanously updated
> 
> 
> Thank you for the information.
> I am just looking onto a similar problem.
> If I find an error I will send a message.
> best regards
> uwe
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Dienstag, 18. Februar 2003 09:16
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Row not found by secondary key when simultanously updated
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I want to report some strange behaviour of the SAPDB database 
> > that could be pointing
> > towards some severe bug in the core database engine.
> > 
> > According to the official web site this is the correct place 
> > to report it, so I give the
> > essential details at once, in an anonymized manner.
> > 
> > We are building a complex application around a J2EE server 
> > (currently JBoss 2.4.10) with
> > SAPDB and alternatively Oracle as data storage machine. The 
> > database is installed on a
> > Windows NT server, the J2EE server is currently running on 
> > our development machines
> > (Windows 2000 + XP) when performing test runs, where the test 
> > code is also being run.
> > 
> > From time to time we encounter "no data found" exceptions 
> > when a row is accessed by the
> > J2EE application (a finder method call of an EJB entity bean, 
> > to be precise), which was
> > very strange since the row affected was created long enough 
> > before that moment that it
> > should have been found, and most times it had already been 
> > accessed successfully multiple
> > times before.
> > 
> > Looking more closely at it (after activating the debug mode 
> > of the "JAWS" persistence
> > layer) we found that the problem occurred when the table was 
> > accessed through a secondary
> > key.
> > 
> > Before giving more details, I give an indication of the 
> > general structure of the database
> > table:
> > 
> > CREATE TABLE My_Table (
> >     Primary_Key   DECIMAL(19),
> >     -- other column definitions
> >     Other_Column  BOOLEAN,
> >     Secondary_Key CHAR(32),
> > 
> >     PRIMARY KEY (Primary_Key),
> >     -- other constraints
> >     CONSTRAINT Constraint_Name UNIQUE Secondary_key
> > );
> > 
> > 
> > Looking up and down the log file I found an insteresting 
> > conincidence: every time the
> > table access failed the sequence of events was this:
> > (1) the statement "SELECT ID FROM My_Table WHERE 
> > Secondary_Key = ?" is prepared and
> > (probably) executed
> > (2) the statement "UPDATE My_Table SET Other_Column = ? WHERE 
> > Primary_Key = ?" is executed
> > from another thread (presumably using the same JDBC 
> > DataSource), modifying a boolean
> > column with no index or constraint on it
> > (3) the ResultSet of the statement (1) is examined and found 
> > to be empty.
> > 
> > There are typically around 400 ms between events (1) and (2) 
> > and a varying amount of time
> > between (2) and (3). That's what happened using a SAPDB 7.3.0.
> > 
> > To counter-check, I tested the same application with an 
> > Oracle as database and found
> > nothing like this behaviour.
> > 
> > As a third test, we installed a SAPDB 7.4.3 and repeated the 
> > test. Same result as on
> > 7.3.0, but the log file has an interesting difference as the 
> > sequence of events now is
> > first (2), second (1) and (3), occurring between 40 and 400 
> > ms after (2).
> > 
> > This malbehaviour did not change either when we moved from 
> > SAPDB-JDBC 7.3.0 (build 029) to
> > 7.4.4 (build 001).
> > 
> > One additional observation: it could be true that for the 
> > problem to manifest various test
> > runs are required with no database clean-up after each test 
> > run, so the affected table
> > already contains about 5 to 10 rows when the problem occurs. 
> > But this is not completely
> > proven by now.
> > 
> > Best regards
> > Arne Siegel
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > sapdb.general mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> sapdb.general mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
> 
_______________________________________________
sapdb.general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general

Reply via email to