SqlServer 2005: deadlock problem with no shared re

问题:

I have a deadlock problem with two transactions that do not access any common records. There is also no lock escalation. So I can't explain why a deadlock is possible.

The deadlock occurs when two such transactions are executed at the same time:

begin transaction

update A set [value] = [value]
where id = 1; /* resp. 2 */

/* synchronize transactions here */

SELECT * 
FROM  
 A inner join B on A.B_FK = B.id
 inner join C on C.A_FK = A.id
WHERE 
 A.[value] = 1; /* resp. 2 */

rollback;

These are the tables and data to setup the scenario:

CREATE TABLE A (
  id INT NOT NULL,
  [value] INT,
  B_FK INT
  primary key (id)
)

CREATE TABLE B (
  id INT NOT NULL,
  primary key (id)
)

CREATE TABLE C (
  id INT NOT NULL,
  A_FK INT
  primary key (id)
)

INSERT INTO A VALUES(1, 1, 1) 
INSERT INTO B VALUES(1) 
INSERT INTO C VALUES(1, 1) 

INSERT INTO A VALUES(2, 2, 2) 
INSERT INTO B VALUES(2) 
INSERT INTO C VALUES(2, 2) 

Table A is in the middle of three tables. If I change anything in the query, for instance remove one of the joined tables B or C, there is no deadlock. The same when I filter by A.id instead of A.value.

The deadlock-graph tells me that they both want to set an S lock to the primary key index of table A. Again: there is no lock escalation.

I'm using SqlServer 2005.

• Why are these transactions conflicting without accessing any common data? Can anyone explain this?
• What can I do to avoid it? I'm using NHibernate and can not change the query that easily.
• Could it be an SqlServer issue?

Thanks a lot.

回答1:

The conflict could happen, because SQL-Server does locking not only on row level, but also on page or even table level.

That means a record can be locked even though it is not actually in use itself, but only a different record "nearby".

SQL Server Lock Contention Tamed might be helpful

回答2:

Also, another thing to consider when you sometimes get these problems is that the locking could come from processing done by triggers.