There’s a better way Well, there is at least a less awful way: Extended Events. You probably feel a little bit dirty for clunking around in that old interface, but it gets the job done. Regards, Ashwin Menon My Blog - http:\\sqllearnings. You mess around with profiler on your SQL Server 2012 box. Right away rather than during next deadlock search. If this lock wait is part of a deadlock, it will be detected For example, if the current interval is 5 seconds, and a deadlock was just detected, the next lock wait will kick off the deadlock detector immediately. This, however, may impact other things that use the PK elsewhere. Would that resolve the deadlock Removing the PK and making UserID the (non-unique) clustered index. Since the two updates don't really rely on each other, that seems viable. Wait for the next deadlock detection interval. Possible solutions I've thought of are: Removing the explicit transaction control. The first couple of lock waits after a deadlock has been detected will immediately trigger a deadlock search rather than If a deadlock has just been detected, it is assumed that the next threads that must wait for a lock are entering the deadlock cycle. If the lock monitor thread stops finding deadlocks, the Database Engine increases the intervals between searches to 5 seconds. If the lock monitor thread finds deadlocks, the deadlock detection interval will drop from 5 seconds to as low as 100 milliseconds depending on the frequency of deadlocks. If you have excessive blocking then that could well be the reason for the deadlocks as well.Ĭheck this there was a connect item already raised for this but is closedĪlso read the topic Deadlock Detection from the link Once they are resolved then look and see if there are any deadlocks happening. I would recommend you to first troubleshoot blocking issues.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |