@cirosantilli/_file/nodejs/sequelize/raw/nodejs/sequelize/raw/parallel_create_delete_empty_tag.js Updated 2025-04-24 +Created 1970-01-01
In this example, posts have tags. When a post is deleted, we check to see if there are now any empty tags, and now we want to delete any empty tags that the post deletion may have created.
If we are creating and deleting posts concurrently, a naive implementation might wrongly delete the tags of a newly created post.
This could be due to a concurrency issue of the following types.
Failure case 1:which would result in the new post incorrectly not having the
- thread 2: delete old post
- thread 2: find all tags with 0 posts. Finds
tag0from the deleted old post which is now empty. - thread 1: create new post, which we want to have tag
tag0 - thread 1: try to create a new tag
tag0, but don't because it already exists, this is done using SQLite'sINSERT OR IGNORE INTOor PostgreSQL'sINSERT ... ON CONFLICT DO NOTHING - thread 1: assign
tag0to the new post by adding an entry to the join table - thread 2: delete all tags with 0 posts. It still sees from its previous search that
tag0is empty, and deletes it, which then cascades into the join table
tag0.Failure case 2:which leads to a foreign key failure, because the tag does not exist anymore when the assignment happens.
- thread 2: delete old post
- thread 2: find all tags with 0 posts
- thread 1: create new post
- thread 1: try to create a new tag
tag0, but don't because it already exists - thread 2: delete all tags with 0 posts. It still sees from its previous search that
tag0is empty, and deletes it - thread 1: assign
tag0to the new post
Failure case 3:which leads to a foreign key failure, because the tag does not exist anymore when the assignment happens.
- thread 2: delete old post
- thread 1: create new post, which we want to have tag
tag0 - thread 1: try to create a new tag
tag0, and succeed because it wasn't present - thread 2: find all tags with 0 posts, finds the tag that was just created
- thread 2: delete all tags with 0 posts, deleting the new tag
- thread 1: assign
tag0to the new post
Sample executions:All executions use 2 threads.
node --unhandled-rejections=strict ./parallel_create_delete_empty_tag.js p 9 1000 'READ COMMITTED': PostgreSQL, 9 tags, DELETE/CREATE thetag0test tag 1000 times, useREAD COMMITTEDExecution often fails, although not always. The failure is always:because the:error: insert or update on table "PostTag" violates foreign key constraint "PostTag_tagId_fkey"tries to insert a tag that was deleted in the other thread, as it didn't have any corresponding posts, so this is the foreign key failure.INSERT INTO "PostTag"node --unhandled-rejections=strict ./parallel_create_delete_empty_tag.js p 9 1000 'READ COMMITTED' 'FOR UPDATE': do aSELECT ... FOR UPDATEbefore trying toINSERT.This is likely correct and the fastest correct method according to our quick benchmarking, about 20% faster thanREPEATABLE READ.node --unhandled-rejections=strict ./parallel_create_delete_empty_tag.js p 9 1000 'REPEATABLE READ': repeatable readWe've never observed any failures with this level. This should likely fix the foreign key issue according to the PostgreSQL docs, since:- the
DELETE "Post"commit cannot start to be seen only in the middle of the thread 1 transaction - and then if DELETE happened, the thread 1 transaction will detect it, ROLLBACK, and re-run. TODO how does it detect the need rollback? Is it because of the foreign key? It is very hard to be sure about this kind of thing, just can't find the information. Related: postgreSQL serialization failure.
- the
node --unhandled-rejections=strict ./parallel_create_delete_empty_tag.js p 9 1000 'SERIALIZABLE': serializablenode --unhandled-rejections=strict ./parallel_create_delete_empty_tag.js p 9 1000 'NONE': magic value, don't use any transaction. Can blow up of course, since even less restrictions thanREAD COMMITTED
Some theoretical notes:
stackoverflow.com/questions/10935850/when-to-use-select-for-update from SELECT FOR UPDATE also talks about a similar example, and has relevant answers.
@cirosantilli/_file/nodejs/sequelize/raw/nodejs/sequelize/raw/parallel_select_and_update_deterministic.js Updated 2025-04-24 +Created 1970-01-01
This example contains a deterministic demo of when postgreSQL serialization failures may happen.
Tested on PostgreSQL 13.5.
@cirosantilli/_file/nodejs/sequelize/raw/nodejs/sequelize/raw/parallel_select_and_update.js Updated 2025-04-24 +Created 1970-01-01
This example is similar to nodejs/sequelize/raw/parallel_update_async.js, but now we are doing a separate SELECT, later followed by an update:
Although this specific example is useless in itself, as we could just use
UPDATE "MyInt" SET i = i + 1 as in nodejs/sequelize/raw/parallel_update_async.js, which automatically solves any concurrency issue, this kind of code could be required for example if the update was a complex function not suitably implemented in SQL, or if the update depends on some external data source.Sample execution:which does:
node --unhandled-rejections=strict ./parallel_select_and_update.js p 2 10 'READ COMMITTED'- PostgreSQL, see other databases options at SQL example
- 2 threads
- 10 increments on each thread
Another one:this will run SELECT FOR UPDATE rather than just SELECT
node --unhandled-rejections=strict ./parallel_select_and_update.js p 2 10 'READ COMMITTED' 'FOR UPDATE'Observed behaviour under different SQL transaction isolation levels:
READ COMMITTED: fails. Nothing in this case prevents:REPEATABLE READ: works. the manual mentions that if multiple concurrent updates would happen, only the first commit succeeds, and the following ones fail and rollback and retry, therefore preventing the loss of an update.READ COMMITTED+SELECT FOR UPDATE: works. And does not do rollbacks, which probably makes it faster. Withp 10 100,REPEATABLE READwas about 4.2s andREAD COMMITTED+SELECT FOR UPDATE3.2s on Lenovo ThinkPad P51 (2017).SELECT FOR UPDATEshould be enough as mentioned at: www.postgresql.org/docs/13/explicit-locking.html#LOCKING-ROWSFOR UPDATE causes the rows retrieved by the SELECT statement to be locked as though for update. This prevents them from being locked, modified or deleted by other transactions until the current transaction ends. That is, other transactions that attempt UPDATE, DELETE, SELECT FOR UPDATE, SELECT FOR NO KEY UPDATE, SELECT FOR SHARE or SELECT FOR KEY SHARE of these rows will be blocked until the current transaction ends; conversely, SELECT FOR UPDATE will wait for a concurrent transaction that has run any of those commands on the same row, and will then lock and return the updated row (or no row, if the row was deleted). Within a REPEATABLE READ or SERIALIZABLE transaction, however, an error will be thrown if a row to be locked has changed since the transaction started. For further discussion see Section 13.4.
A non-raw version of this example can be seen at: nodejs/sequelize/parallel_select_and_update.js.
- knowyourmeme.com/memes/high-expectations-asian-father
- www.reddit.com/r/AsianParentStories/ 100k+ subs Reddit sub about it
"Joachimsthal" is the German for it. Note how it is just near the modern frontier between Germany and the Czech Republic.
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium&oldid=1243907294#Pre-discovery_use:
In the early 19th century, the world's only known sources of uranium ore were these mines.
Apparently the region was a silver mining center:
Starting in the late Middle Ages, pitchblende was extracted from the Habsburg silver mines in Joachimsthal, Bohemia (now Jáchymov in the Czech Republic), and was used as a coloring agent in the local glassmaking industry
There are unlisted articles, also show them or only show them.