sqlite database schema version incrementing on disconnect/connect from sqlitestudio - sqlite

I use the sqlite database schema version.
PRAGMA schema_version;
It helps me control upgrades and prevents user from modifying the schema and then reporting a flood of irreproducible bugs.
However, I find the version increments far more often that I expect.
" It is incremented by SQLite whenever the database schema is modified (by creating or dropping a table or index). " http://www.sqlite.org/pragma.html#pragma_schema_version
In particular when I simply connect and disconnect from sqlitestudio, even though I do not change the schema in any way.
Is there any way of preventing this happening ( or at least understanding what is going on ) ?

Related

Locking transactions (SQL Server + EF5)

I am trying to debug a performance issue in an ASP.NET application using .NET 4.5, EF5 (with a 2nd level cache and lazy loaded navigation properties) and SQL Server 2014. We are experiencing a number of wait locks in the SQL server. When I look at the locking transactions, they contain a very quick UPDATE, and then a very large SELECT. The UPDATE is ostensibly a necessary one, but I am confused as to why the SELECT is being run in the same transaction (and why anything is being selected at all). The fundamental issue is that the table referenced in the UPDATE statement is locked for the duration of the SELECT statement.
We use repository pattern for getting data from the db, and DbContext.SaveChanges() for committing changes. I cannot figure out how it is possible that EF produces a transaction where there is both a write and a read, and I am not getting relevant results when I try to search Google.
We have a number of interfaces into the system, and a couple of console applications working on the database as well, but they all go through the same setup/versions of .NET and EF.
I figure that it must be through SaveChanges, since this is (AFAIK) the only time that things are written to the database.
Does anyone here have a hint as to how these locking transactions might be produced?
The fundamental issue is that the table referenced in the UPDATE
statement is locked for the duration of the SELECT statement.
The answer is in your question:
the SELECT is being run in the same transaction
X lock is always held until the end of the transaction, i.e. until it commits or rolls back. So if after your quick update there is a long select, all that update locked in your table remains locked until your select ends.
You can separate your update and select if your business rules permit, you can add an appropriate index on the updated table to lock only some rows and not the whole table, or you can optimize your select to execute faster.

Why would the TrackedMessages_Copy_BizTalkMsgBoxDb start failing with "Query processor could not produce a query plan"?

Why would the TrackedMessages_Copy_BizTalkMsgBoxDb SQL Agent job start failing with "Query processor could not produce a query plan"?
Query processor could not produce a query plan because of the hints defined in this query. Resubmit the query without specifying any hints and without using SET FORCEPLAN. [SQLSTATE 42000] (Error 8622).
Our SQL guys are talking about amending the stored proc. but we've told them to treat BizTalk db's as a black box
It should go without saying, but before anything, make sure to backup your databases. In fact, if your regular backup jobs are running, you may be able to restore a backup and compare things to when it was working on this server. That said -
Check the SQL Agent Job to make sure no additional steps have been added/no plan has been forced/no hints are being used; it should just have one step called 'Purge' that calls the procedure below with the DB server and DTA database name as parameters.
Check the procedure (BizTalkMsgBoxDb.dbo.bts_CopyTrackedMessagesToDTA) to make sure it hasn't been altered.
If this is a production or otherwise sensitive box, back up the DBs and restore them to a local dev environment before proceeding!
If this is not production, see if you can run the procedure (perhaps in a transaction that you rollback) directly in SSMS. See if you get any better errors. Add print statements to see if you can find out exactly where it's getting conflicting hints.
If the procedure won't run, consider freeing the procedure cache (DBCC FREEPROCCACHE) and seeing if the procedure will run.
If it runs in your dev environment from a backup, you may have to start looking at server/database settings. I can't think of which ones off the top of my head that would cause this error though.
For what it's worth, well intentioned DBAs break BizTalk frequently. They decide that an index is missing or not properly covering, or that security could be improved, or that the database should be treated like other databases they administer are treated. I've seen DBAs do really silly things to the BizTalk databases that get very hard to diagnose.
Did you try updating the statistics on the database table referenced by the stored procedure (which is run by the SQL Server Agent job? The query planner uses those to decide how best to execute your SQL.

Qt , How to lock SQLite database for multiple operation

I have a QML application which user intract with. There is a timer that listen to server for work order then insert all info to SQLite db in application.Also user make change on data (update,delete etc...) in SQLite.
My question is , How to prevent multi operation on SQLite table. Only one operation must take effect on SQLite(select,delete,insert,update....) I don't know but , Can Mutex.lock structure use for this. Or Is there a something wrong with multiple operation on SQLite
First thing you should do is read up on SQLite locking, they have a section in the docs about it: https://www.sqlite.org/lockingv3.html
The summarisation is that SQLite does locking on modifications such as an insert or update, but won't create a lock when reading. However if a lock exists whilst a modification is in progress the read won't be able to access the database.
I wouldn't worry too much about locking on reading, the state should be fine to be shared at that stage.

How can I get ServiceStack.OrmLite to enforce foreign keys when using SQLite?

Per this other SO answer, it appears that SQLite does not automatically enforce foreign key relationships, and this must be explicitly enabled per connection. And this is a reported issue with ServiceStack.OrmLite. I've reproduced this very behavior myself with ServiceStack.OrmLite 3.9.33 and SQLite 1.0.84, where unit tests succeed (allowing delete of a record with a foreign key reference) but the real application (legitimately) fails.
What I'm unclear on is how/where to execute the necessary "PRAGMA foreign_keys = ON;" SQL command so that it applies to any connections for my SQLite unit/integration tests but not for my primary SQL Server connections. It seems that it would ideally be part of the IDbConnectionFactory registration.
Can anyone help?
Edit: Cascading deletes would be another way to handle this situation, but despite setting this correctly on my FK columns using the ForeignKey attribute, it appears ServiceStack.OrmLite doesn't honor this when used with SQLite (noted here), despite the latter's support for it. It's possible that this is tied to the original issue, with SQLite's FK enforcement being disabled by default, and it would work properly if that were enabled first.

Subsonic: Select on a View, locks the table update?

I have a Web site live and running now. I am using the Subsonic to handle the database connections etc.
I am getting time out expired error while updating a table (say Employee). When I check sp_who2, I see the suspended connection for the PID which is updating with a block by anothor pid, so I run the profiler and found out when ever this suspended connection occur, the blocked pid is a select statement on the view (say ActiveEmployees, which is the same as the table but with some where conditions).
Anyone know why a Select statement on the view could cause failure in update. If it is other (like select fails due to update) may be reasonable.
Is there any way for me to make select on a view without locking the table?
PS: I am using the Sql server 2005 and subsonic 2.2.
You might add with(nolock) hint to the select statement in the view if you don't care about accuracy of the returned data (it will return uncommited rows possibly).
We encountered timeouts also when the select statements where scanning a table that other thread was inserting into. I resolved the issue by adding appropriate index that is used by our select.

Resources