[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipselink-dev] questions while running JPA JUnit tests
|
Hi Tom,
> I am glad you are starting to get some success.
I might have reached the limit of this success already.
I can do a full run again (no hangs), with a success rate of 57.90%
(highest so far!), 56 failures and 495 errors.
The main errors/failures I see are due to:
- table locked issue (still)
- temporary table issue
I'm not sure why, but I see a certain table (for example CMP3_DEPT)
being dropped/created and successfully used, then it tries to drop and
recreate it, but the drop failed because the table's locked by another
user. This exception then prevents other tables from being created,
leading to other failures (like table not found).
From the log I can see the create and drop statements were executed in
transactions. Even the DML to it seems to all use transactions.
I don't know if it means anything to you, but the logged numeric id of
the connection when it failed was the same as when the table was
successfully created earlier, but the id of the connection used for the
DML was different.
I'd like to try the other idea you had with a static session. Could you
give more information?
I suppose I can swap it in in the locations where I now begin/commit the
transactions?
Can this static session use (unpooled) connections that can be closed at
"commit" time?
Did you take a look at any of the other calls to
shouldWriteToDatabase()? Will they require transactions as well?
Yes I did.
They don't require transactions for Symfoware because they relate to
creating/dropping constraints using ALTER TABLE (a syntax Symfoware does
not support) and to altering sequences (again, not supported by Symfoware).
With global temporary tables implemented, creation of the table goes
fine, but the following INSERT fails because the table is "locked".
I'm not sure if I can (or should) put this table's create statement in
a transaction, I suppose this whole query could already be running in
a transaction.
I am surprised that Delete All and Update All queries are not running in
transactions already. Maybe we should try to isolate a sequence of
Note that a "Delete All" consists of the following statements (at least
in the tests that I saw failing):
1. creation of the global table
2. insert some rows
3. select some rows
4. drop the global table (or delete * from the table, depending on
whether local temporary tables are used).
All of this might be in one transaction, but the issue with Symfoware
was that DDL and DML can't be in the same transaction, so 1. needs to
run in a transaction and commit, then 2. and 3. in a new transaction,
then 4. (even putting just 1. and 4. in transactions does not seem to
help as 2. and 3. lock the table)
These statements are created and added to a Vector, and I'm not sure
where and how these statements are executed (so I could add the
demarcations between them). I am hoping Andrei will have a good
suggestion. Or a better solution.
tests that cause the failure... (i.e. Does the first Delete all or
Update All fail? Or, is the temporary table already created by another
Delete all or Update all? Do we see the initial create demarked by
transactions? Is there an error in the initial create that causes issues?)
The temporary table seems to have been created successfully. Here is the
relevant part of the log:
[junit] [EL Finer]:
ServerSession(14864562)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--client acquired
[junit] [EL Finest]:
UnitOfWork(31975400)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--Execute query
DeleteAllQuery(referenceClass=Project sql="DELETE FROM TL_CMP3_PROJECT")
[junit] [EL Finer]:
ClientSession(2776693)--Connection(14563222)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--begin
transaction
[junit] [EL Fine]:
ClientSession(2776693)--Connection(14563222)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--CREATE
GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE TL_CMP3_PROJECT (PROJ_ID INTEGER NOT NULL,
PROJ_TYPE VARCHAR(255), DESCRIP VARCHAR(255), PROJ_NAME VARCHAR(255),
VERSION INTEGER, LEADER_ID INTEGER, PRIMARY KEY (PROJ_ID)) ON TESTDB01 10
[junit] [EL Fine]:
ClientSession(2776693)--Connection(14563222)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--INSERT
INTO TL_CMP3_PROJECT (PROJ_ID) SELECT PROJ_ID FROM CMP3_PROJECT WHERE
(PROJ_NAME = testUpdateAllProjects)
[junit] [EL Fine]:
ClientSession(2776693)--Connection(14563222)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--DELETE
FROM TL_CMP3_PROJECT
[junit] [EL Warning]:
UnitOfWork(31975400)--Thread(Thread[main,5,main])--Local Exception Stack:
[junit] Exception [EclipseLink-4002] (Eclipse Persistence Services
- 2.0.0.qualifier): org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException
[junit] Internal Exception: java.sql.SQLException: [SymfoWARE ODBC
Driver][SymfoWARE Server] JYP2091E Table "TL_CMP3_PROJECT" of schema
"DEVELOP" being used exclusively by another user.
[junit] Error Code: -2091
[junit] Call: INSERT INTO TL_CMP3_PROJECT (PROJ_ID) SELECT PROJ_ID
FROM CMP3_PROJECT WHERE (PROJ_NAME = 'testUpdateAllProjects')
[junit] Query: DeleteAllQuery(referenceClass=Project sql="DELETE
FROM TL_CMP3_PROJECT")
[junit] at
org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException.sqlException(DatabaseException.java:333)
Another issue with Symfoware's temporary tables is that the table
space name for the table must be specified at creation time. It does
not default to the table space that creation of normal tables default
to. So we'd need a way for the user to define this table space.
There is a table passed into the writeCreateTempTableSql() method. Can
we use the table space from that table?
I would like it to use that table's table space, but I don't know how to
find out dynamically what table space that is using. (I am currently
hard-coding it for now)
Symfoware V10 (coming out soon) has a new "DEFAULT TABLESPACE" option
that I can specify. I'm not sure how it works, but there is also a new
CREATE DEFAULT TABLESPACE DDL statement, that I suppose it works with.
So I could specify that and inform the user to prepare a default
tablespace, but in that case I need to explain in the Wiki which kind of
JPA functions require it.
Also, except for the table space I need to specify the number of
concurrent users that will use it. Is my understanding correct that
these tables are used within a transaction, so they will never be
accessed by multiple users?
In what cases are updateAll/deleteAll required exactly? Are they
related to JPA 2.0 functions? Are they required for JPA 1.0
functionality too?
UpdateAll and DeleteAll are both JPA 1.0 features and covered in the JPA
1.0 TCK.
The spec does not use this terminology. Is it equivalent to an UPDATE or
DELETE statement with no WHERE clause? Or an UPDATE/DELETE statement for
an entity which has a particular relationship with other entities?
As I see no clean solution I wonder what the impact is of making this
a limitation for this platform for now.
Have you looked into Andrei's suggestion of Local temporary tables.
Yes, unfortunately it did not help.
From an EclipseLink point of view, that is a possibility. It is just a
matter of figuring out what that means to you from a TCK point of view?
No, more of a JPA1.0 /TLE point of view.
I've based this Symfoware platform class on the Symfoware platform my
team developed for TLE. I cannot remember encountering this issue at the
time. If there is a chance the same problem would occur on TLE (using
JPA 1.0 functionality, not TLE/Toplink's additional stuff), I'd like to
know the impact to Symfoware users of that implementation.
But also from a JPA 1.0/2.0 (=TCK?) point of view: to what extend is the
platform still usable without this function? If it only affects a
certain type of update/delete queries, and the range of functions that
is affected can be determined and clearly explained (from a user's point
of view), then I'd like to consider giving up on this and focus on other
functions.
Unless it is a condition to ever get the Symfoware platform graduated
from incubation (is it?), I'm not thinking of TCK certification at this
time.
If I no longer run into locking issues, what will the final solution
look like? Can I add a method createObjectsInTransactions() to the DB
platforms, defaulting to false of course, true for Symfoware, that
begins/commits/rolls back transactions in the locations I described
above?
That is likely the best way to address this. We could tweak the method
name a bit, and of course, check the other calls for
shouldWriteToDatabase() to see if they needed to be transactional as well.
Ah, you don't like the method name. ;)
Well lucky for us the final solution will be different.
I won't propose createObjectsInStaticSession(). ;-p
Thanks,
Dies
Dies Koper wrote:
Hi Tom,
I am trying to enclose DDL calls with transactions. Inside
schemaManager.createSequences() there are mixed DDL and DML (select
and inserts on the sequence table/object), so just I'm moving the
transaction calls deeper into the call stack.
The locking error I get now is from the SELECT statement on table
CMP3_ENTITYB_SEQ in the following call in SchemaManager#createObject.
databaseObjectDefinition.createOnDatabase(getSession());
I did put a getSession().beginTransaction(); before this call, so I'm
not sure yet what the problem is. I'll investigate a bit more and let
you know.
Thanks,
Dies
The idea is that we would add calls that begin and commit
transactions around table creation calls.
Lets see if it works before we design the final solution:
- Find the
org.eclipse.persistence.tools.schemaframework.TableCreator.replaceTables(session,
schemaManager) method
- Add transactional boundaries
public void replac
