There is lots of information in the internet regarding this common "problem".
Solutions like:
IF NOT EXISTS() BEGIN INSERT INTO (...) END
are not thread-safe in my opinion and you will probably agree.
However could you confirm that putting the exist into the where clause of one single select would solve the problem of the highest concurrency in sql engine? Is it enough?
insert into Table (columns)
select column1, column2, column3
where not exists (select top 1 1 from Table where something)
Should be there also added some higher transaction level or can this be executed on a default one: committed?
Would this work under uncommitted level?
Thanks!
//Added later
Can i assume that both sql' are correct:
1) set transaction isolation level repeatable read
IF NOT EXISTS() BEGIN INSERT INTO (...) END
2) set transaction isolation level repeatable read
insert into Table (columns)
select column1, column2, column3
where not exists (select top 1 1 from Table where something)
To answer the updated question
repeatable read
would still not be sufficient.It is
holdlock
/serializable
level that you would need.You are trying to prevent phantoms (where on the first read no rows met the criteria so the
NOT EXISTS
returns true but subsequently a concurrent transaction inserts a row meeting it)With TRY/CATCH you can avoid the extra read
If you can discard duplicates, this is a highly scalable technique
Links: