On Sat, 27 Nov 2004, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 03:20:16AM +0100, Kamil Kaczkowski wrote: > > > Change things so you don't need to update more than one row per query, > > > perhaps? The lack of any primary key on that table was already pretty > > > disturbing from a database-theory point of view. Maybe you should > > > rethink the table layout. > > Yes, I know. I'm not the developer of this application, my job is > > only to find reasons behind those deadlocks and suggest solution. > > Anyway I'm suprised that UPDATE statements are so locking sensitive. > > It's not the locking on the UPDATE that's getting you. Multiple updates > can run concurrently (depending on your serialization level anyway, I'm > talking about default setup here). > > Where the problem is is the foreign key locks. The usual thing is to > sort the rows you are updating in such a way that the foreign keys > references are always processed in the same order, hence can't > deadlock. See earlier posts in this thread, I have no foreign key constraints on this table. Regards. -- Kamil Kaczkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
