I had always used something similar to the following to achieve it:
INSERT INTO TheTable
SELECT
@primaryKey,
@value1,
@value2
WHERE
NOT EXISTS
(SELECT
NULL
FROM
TheTable
WHERE
PrimaryKey = @primaryKey)
...but once under load, a primary key violation occurred. This is the only statement which inserts into this table at all. So does this mean that the above statement is not atomic?
The problem is that this is almost impossible to recreate at will.
Perhaps I could change it to the something like the following:
INSERT INTO TheTable
WITH
(HOLDLOCK,
UPDLOCK,
ROWLOCK)
SELECT
@primaryKey,
@value1,
@value2
WHERE
NOT EXISTS
(SELECT
NULL
FROM
TheTable
WITH
(HOLDLOCK,
UPDLOCK,
ROWLOCK)
WHERE
PrimaryKey = @primaryKey)
Although, maybe I'm using the wrong locks or using too much locking or something.
I have seen other questions on stackoverflow.com where answers are suggesting a "IF (SELECT COUNT(*) ... INSERT" etc., but I was always under the (perhaps incorrect) assumption that a single SQL statement would be atomic.
Does anyone have any ideas?
7条答案
按热度按时间emeijp431#
What about the "JFDI" pattern?
Seriously, this is quickest and the most concurrent without locks, especially at high volumes. What if the UPDLOCK is escalated and the whole table is locked?
Read lesson 4 :
Lesson 4: When developing the upsert proc prior to tuning the indexes, I first trusted that the
If Exists(Select…)
line would fire for any item and would prohibit duplicates. Nada. In a short time there were thousands of duplicates because the same item would hit the upsert at the same millisecond and both transactions would see a not exists and perform the insert. After much testing the solution was to use the unique index, catch the error, and retry allowing the transaction to see the row and perform an update instead an insert.piv4azn72#
I added HOLDLOCK which wasn't present originally. Please disregard the version without this hint.
As far as I'm concerned, this should be enough:
Also, if you actually want to update a row if it exists and insert if it doesn't, you might find this question useful.
42fyovps3#
You could use MERGE:
lvjbypge4#
To add slightly to @gbn's answer, perhaps "enhance" it. For those, like me, left feeling unsettled with what to do in the
<> 2627
scenario (and no an emptyCATCH
is not an option). I found this little nugget from technet .e4yzc0pl5#
I don't know if this is the "official" way, but you could try the
INSERT
, and fall back toUPDATE
if it fails.x6yk4ghg6#
In addition to the accepted answer JFDI pattern, you probably want to ignore
2601
errors too (in addition to2627
) which is "Violation of unique index".P.S. And if you're already using C# and .NET here's how you can neatly handle this without complicated SQL code using a simple C# 6.0
when
statement:By the way, here's a good read on the subject: https://michaeljswart.com/2017/07/sql-server-upsert-patterns-and-antipatterns/
31moq8wy7#
I've done a similar operation in past using a different method. First, I declare a variable to hold the primary key. Then I populate that variable with the output of a select statement which looks for a record with those values. Then I do and IF statement. If primary key is null, then do insert, else, return some error code.