MySQL 5.0 supports table-level locking for
MyISAM
and MEMORY
tables,
page-level locking for BDB
tables, and
row-level locking for InnoDB
tables.
In many cases, you can make an educated guess about which locking type is best for an application, but generally it is difficult to say that a given lock type is better than another. Everything depends on the application and different parts of an application may require different lock types.
To decide whether you want to use a storage engine with
row-level locking, you should look at what your application does
and what mix of select and update statements it uses. For
example, most Web applications many selects, relatively few
deletes, updates based mainly on key values, and inserts into a
few specific tables. The base MySQL MyISAM
setup is very well tuned for this.
Table locking in MySQL is deadlock-free for storage engines that use table-level locking. Deadlock avoidance is managed by always requesting all needed locks at once at the beginning of a query and always locking the tables in the same order.
The table-locking method MySQL uses for WRITE
locks works as follows:
If there are no locks on the table, put a write lock on it.
Otherwise, put the lock request in the write lock queue.
The table-locking method MySQL uses for READ
locks works as follows:
If there are no write locks on the table, put a read lock on it.
Otherwise, put the lock request in the read lock queue.
When a lock is released, the lock is made available to the threads in the write lock queue, then to the threads in the read lock queue.
This means that if you have many updates for a table,
SELECT
statements wait until there are no
more updates.
You can analyze the table lock contention on your system by
checking the Table_locks_waited
and
Table_locks_immediate
status variables:
mysql> SHOW STATUS LIKE 'Table%'; +-----------------------+---------+ | Variable_name | Value | +-----------------------+---------+ | Table_locks_immediate | 1151552 | | Table_locks_waited | 15324 | +-----------------------+---------+
You can freely mix concurrent INSERT
and
SELECT
statements for a
MyISAM
table without locks if the
INSERT
statements are non-conflicting. That
is, you can insert rows into a MyISAM
table
at the same time other clients are reading from it. No conflict
occurs if the data file contains no free blocks in the middle,
because in that case, records always are inserted at the end of
the data file. (Holes can result from rows having been deleted
from or updated in the middle of the table.) If there are holes,
concurrent inserts are re-enabled automatically when all holes
have been filled with new data.
If you want to do many INSERT
and
SELECT
operations on a table when concurrent
inserts are not possible, you can insert rows in a temporary
table and update the real table with the records from the
temporary table once in a while. This can be done with the
following code:
mysql> LOCK TABLES real_table WRITE, insert_table WRITE; mysql> INSERT INTO real_table SELECT * FROM insert_table; mysql> TRUNCATE TABLE insert_table; mysql> UNLOCK TABLES;
InnoDB
uses row locks and
BDB
uses page locks. For these two storage
engines, deadlocks are possible. This is because
InnoDB
automatically acquires row locks and
BDB
acquires page locks during the processing
of SQL statements, not at the start of the transaction.
Advantages of row-level locking:
Fewer lock conflicts when accessing different rows in many threads.
Fewer changes for rollbacks.
Makes it possible to lock a single row a long time.
Disadvantages of row-level locking:
Takes more memory than page-level or table-level locks.
Is slower than page-level or table-level locks when used on a large part of the table because you must acquire many more locks.
Is definitely much worse than other locks if you often do
GROUP BY
operations on a large part of
the data or if you often must scan the entire table.
With higher-level locks, you can also more easily support locks of different types to tune the application, because the lock overhead is less than for row-level locks.
Table locks are superior to page-level or row-level locks in the following cases:
Most statements for the table are reads.
Reads and updates on strict keys, where you update or delete a row that can be fetched with a single key read:
UPDATEtbl_name
SETcolumn
=value
WHEREunique_key_col
=key_value
; DELETE FROMtbl_name
WHEREunique_key_col
=key_value
;
SELECT
combined with concurrent
INSERT
statements, and very few
UPDATE
or DELETE
statements.
Many scans or GROUP BY
operations on the
entire table without any writers.
Options other than row-level or page-level locking:
Versioning (such as that used in MySQL for concurrent inserts) where it is possible to have one writer at the same time as many readers. This means that the database or table supports different views for the data depending on when access begins. Other common terms for this are “time travel”, “copy on write”, or “copy on demand”.
Copy on demand is in many cases superior to page-level or row-level locking. However, in the worst case, it can use much more memory than using normal locks.
Instead of using row-level locks, you can employ
application-level locks, such as
GET_LOCK()
and
RELEASE_LOCK()
in MySQL. These are
advisory locks, so they work only in well-behaved
applications.
Ésta es una traducción del manual de referencia de MySQL, que puede encontrarse en dev.mysql.com. El manual de referencia original de MySQL está escrito en inglés, y esta traducción no necesariamente está tan actualizada como la versión original. Para cualquier sugerencia sobre la traducción y para señalar errores de cualquier tipo, no dude en dirigirse a mysql-es@vespito.com.