Lock repository to let write only one process
0
When i try to save via swagger,It gives those errors:
INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR(PERSISTENCE_DATAACCESS_EXCEPTION) - DataIntegrityViolationException : could not execute statement; SQL [n/a]; constraint [UK_8q03as5by8j5kvtroc1dyl0lo]; nested exception is org.hibernate.exception.ConstraintViolationException: could not execute
My class is this:
public class Book{
@Id
private long id;
@NotNull
@Column(unique = true)
@Size(min = 7, max = 7)
private String referenceCode;;//this field makes the error because of not unique value creation
That referenceCode is also unique. I am keeping the value in another table. And it has another service to save and increment:
@Override
public String generateReference(String productCode) {
ReferenceGenerator referenceGenerator = referenceGeneratorRepository.findByMnemonic(productCode);
if (referenceGenerator != null) {
referenceGenerator.setValue(incrementReference(referenceGenerator.getValue()));
referenceGeneratorRepository.save(referenceGenerator);
}
else {
referenceGenerator = referenceGeneratorRepository.save(new ReferenceGenerator(PREAPP, START_VALUE_FOR_REFERENCE_CODE));
}
return PREFIX_OF_REFERENCE_CODE + referenceGenerator.getValue();
}
private String incrementReference(String value) {
return Long.toString( Long.parseLong(value, 36) + 1, 36).toUpperCase();
}
}
In my main service, while saving, it uses this:
public class Bookservice{
public void createBook(){
book.setReferenceCode(referenceGeneratorService.generateReference("BOOK));
BookApplication savedBook = bookRepository.save(book);
On swagger, when i sent lots of requests to save, it can sometimes fail to save. Because of duplication and uniqueness. Concurrency
How can i prevent this?
Lock or something? I dont want to lose data also.
I can use pessimist lock but maybe there are other ways?
Also i can change the method that makes it unique but i want to keep it.
Like this
https://stackoverflow.com/a/53259441/10309977
i put synchronized to the method but i can again get the errors.
@Override
public synchronized String generateReference(String productCode) {
I put here.
Maybe i should put to BookService.java class?
hibernate spring-boot jpa
asked Nov 15 '18 at 12:32
asdasasdasdasasd
237
|
show 9 more comments
0
When i try to save via swagger,It gives those errors:
INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR(PERSISTENCE_DATAACCESS_EXCEPTION) - DataIntegrityViolationException : could not execute statement; SQL [n/a]; constraint [UK_8q03as5by8j5kvtroc1dyl0lo]; nested exception is org.hibernate.exception.ConstraintViolationException: could not execute
My class is this:
public class Book{
@Id
private long id;
@NotNull
@Column(unique = true)
@Size(min = 7, max = 7)
private String referenceCode;;//this field makes the error because of not unique value creation
That referenceCode is also unique. I am keeping the value in another table. And it has another service to save and increment:
@Override
public String generateReference(String productCode) {
ReferenceGenerator referenceGenerator = referenceGeneratorRepository.findByMnemonic(productCode);
if (referenceGenerator != null) {
referenceGenerator.setValue(incrementReference(referenceGenerator.getValue()));
referenceGeneratorRepository.save(referenceGenerator);
}
else {
referenceGenerator = referenceGeneratorRepository.save(new ReferenceGenerator(PREAPP, START_VALUE_FOR_REFERENCE_CODE));
}
return PREFIX_OF_REFERENCE_CODE + referenceGenerator.getValue();
}
private String incrementReference(String value) {
return Long.toString( Long.parseLong(value, 36) + 1, 36).toUpperCase();
}
}
In my main service, while saving, it uses this:
public class Bookservice{
public void createBook(){
book.setReferenceCode(referenceGeneratorService.generateReference("BOOK));
BookApplication savedBook = bookRepository.save(book);
On swagger, when i sent lots of requests to save, it can sometimes fail to save. Because of duplication and uniqueness. Concurrency
How can i prevent this?
Lock or something? I dont want to lose data also.
I can use pessimist lock but maybe there are other ways?
Also i can change the method that makes it unique but i want to keep it.
Like this
https://stackoverflow.com/a/53259441/10309977
i put synchronized to the method but i can again get the errors.
@Override
public synchronized String generateReference(String productCode) {
I put here.
Maybe i should put to BookService.java class?
hibernate spring-boot jpa
asked Nov 15 '18 at 12:32
asdasasdasdasasd
237
1
This is the reason you generally don't want to use table based increments. To solve this you would need to lock the table for the duration of the transaction. This will however impact your throughput as you now can only serve 1 transaction at a time. Addingsynchronizewon't help as you would need synchronize the wholecreateBookmethod.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 12:40
@M.Deinum so if i putsynchronizedto bothgenerateReferenceandvreateBook, it works?
– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 12:55
No you only need to synchronizecreateBookhowever that will severely impact your performance and work with a single instance of your application. As soon as you deploy 2 instances it won't work anymore.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 13:59
@M.Deinum so, for 2 instances work, what can i do? Any thing likepessimist lock? Why cant i lock the database, so another instance can not write to it?
– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 14:14
You could but that would severely impact your performance. As you will lock everything down.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 16:25
|
show 9 more comments
0
0
0
When i try to save via swagger,It gives those errors:
INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR(PERSISTENCE_DATAACCESS_EXCEPTION) - DataIntegrityViolationException : could not execute statement; SQL [n/a]; constraint [UK_8q03as5by8j5kvtroc1dyl0lo]; nested exception is org.hibernate.exception.ConstraintViolationException: could not execute
My class is this:
public class Book{
@Id
private long id;
@NotNull
@Column(unique = true)
@Size(min = 7, max = 7)
private String referenceCode;;//this field makes the error because of not unique value creation
That referenceCode is also unique. I am keeping the value in another table. And it has another service to save and increment:
@Override
public String generateReference(String productCode) {
ReferenceGenerator referenceGenerator = referenceGeneratorRepository.findByMnemonic(productCode);
if (referenceGenerator != null) {
referenceGenerator.setValue(incrementReference(referenceGenerator.getValue()));
referenceGeneratorRepository.save(referenceGenerator);
}
else {
referenceGenerator = referenceGeneratorRepository.save(new ReferenceGenerator(PREAPP, START_VALUE_FOR_REFERENCE_CODE));
}
return PREFIX_OF_REFERENCE_CODE + referenceGenerator.getValue();
}
private String incrementReference(String value) {
return Long.toString( Long.parseLong(value, 36) + 1, 36).toUpperCase();
}
}
In my main service, while saving, it uses this:
public class Bookservice{
public void createBook(){
book.setReferenceCode(referenceGeneratorService.generateReference("BOOK));
BookApplication savedBook = bookRepository.save(book);
On swagger, when i sent lots of requests to save, it can sometimes fail to save. Because of duplication and uniqueness. Concurrency
How can i prevent this?
Lock or something? I dont want to lose data also.
I can use pessimist lock but maybe there are other ways?
Also i can change the method that makes it unique but i want to keep it.
Like this
https://stackoverflow.com/a/53259441/10309977
i put synchronized to the method but i can again get the errors.
@Override
public synchronized String generateReference(String productCode) {
I put here.
Maybe i should put to BookService.java class?
hibernate spring-boot jpa
asked Nov 15 '18 at 12:32
asdasasdasdasasd
237
When i try to save via swagger,It gives those errors:
INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR(PERSISTENCE_DATAACCESS_EXCEPTION) - DataIntegrityViolationException : could not execute statement; SQL [n/a]; constraint [UK_8q03as5by8j5kvtroc1dyl0lo]; nested exception is org.hibernate.exception.ConstraintViolationException: could not execute
My class is this:
public class Book{
@Id
private long id;
@NotNull
@Column(unique = true)
@Size(min = 7, max = 7)
private String referenceCode;;//this field makes the error because of not unique value creation
That referenceCode is also unique. I am keeping the value in another table. And it has another service to save and increment:
@Override
public String generateReference(String productCode) {
ReferenceGenerator referenceGenerator = referenceGeneratorRepository.findByMnemonic(productCode);
if (referenceGenerator != null) {
referenceGenerator.setValue(incrementReference(referenceGenerator.getValue()));
referenceGeneratorRepository.save(referenceGenerator);
}
else {
referenceGenerator = referenceGeneratorRepository.save(new ReferenceGenerator(PREAPP, START_VALUE_FOR_REFERENCE_CODE));
}
return PREFIX_OF_REFERENCE_CODE + referenceGenerator.getValue();
}
private String incrementReference(String value) {
return Long.toString( Long.parseLong(value, 36) + 1, 36).toUpperCase();
}
}
In my main service, while saving, it uses this:
public class Bookservice{
public void createBook(){
book.setReferenceCode(referenceGeneratorService.generateReference("BOOK));
BookApplication savedBook = bookRepository.save(book);
On swagger, when i sent lots of requests to save, it can sometimes fail to save. Because of duplication and uniqueness. Concurrency
How can i prevent this?
Lock or something? I dont want to lose data also.
I can use pessimist lock but maybe there are other ways?
Also i can change the method that makes it unique but i want to keep it.
Like this
https://stackoverflow.com/a/53259441/10309977
i put synchronized to the method but i can again get the errors.
@Override
public synchronized String generateReference(String productCode) {
I put here.
Maybe i should put to BookService.java class?
hibernate spring-boot jpa
hibernate spring-boot jpa
asked Nov 15 '18 at 12:32
asdasasdasdasasd
237
asked Nov 15 '18 at 12:32
asdasasdasdasasd
237
asked Nov 15 '18 at 12:32
asdasasdasdasasd
237
asked Nov 15 '18 at 12:32
asdasasdasdasasd
237
asked Nov 15 '18 at 12:32
asdasasdasdasasd
237
237
1
This is the reason you generally don't want to use table based increments. To solve this you would need to lock the table for the duration of the transaction. This will however impact your throughput as you now can only serve 1 transaction at a time. Addingsynchronizewon't help as you would need synchronize the wholecreateBookmethod.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 12:40
@M.Deinum so if i putsynchronizedto bothgenerateReferenceandvreateBook, it works?
– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 12:55
No you only need to synchronizecreateBookhowever that will severely impact your performance and work with a single instance of your application. As soon as you deploy 2 instances it won't work anymore.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 13:59
@M.Deinum so, for 2 instances work, what can i do? Any thing likepessimist lock? Why cant i lock the database, so another instance can not write to it?
– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 14:14
You could but that would severely impact your performance. As you will lock everything down.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 16:25
|
show 9 more comments
1
This is the reason you generally don't want to use table based increments. To solve this you would need to lock the table for the duration of the transaction. This will however impact your throughput as you now can only serve 1 transaction at a time. Addingsynchronizewon't help as you would need synchronize the wholecreateBookmethod.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 12:40
@M.Deinum so if i putsynchronizedto bothgenerateReferenceandvreateBook, it works?
– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 12:55
No you only need to synchronizecreateBookhowever that will severely impact your performance and work with a single instance of your application. As soon as you deploy 2 instances it won't work anymore.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 13:59
@M.Deinum so, for 2 instances work, what can i do? Any thing likepessimist lock? Why cant i lock the database, so another instance can not write to it?
– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 14:14
You could but that would severely impact your performance. As you will lock everything down.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 16:25
1
1
This is the reason you generally don't want to use table based increments. To solve this you would need to lock the table for the duration of the transaction. This will however impact your throughput as you now can only serve 1 transaction at a time. Adding
synchronize won't help as you would need synchronize the whole createBook method.– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 12:40
This is the reason you generally don't want to use table based increments. To solve this you would need to lock the table for the duration of the transaction. This will however impact your throughput as you now can only serve 1 transaction at a time. Adding
synchronize won't help as you would need synchronize the whole createBook method.– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 12:40
@M.Deinum so if i put
synchronized to both generateReference and vreateBook, it works?– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 12:55
@M.Deinum so if i put
synchronized to both generateReference and vreateBook, it works?– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 12:55
No you only need to synchronize
createBook however that will severely impact your performance and work with a single instance of your application. As soon as you deploy 2 instances it won't work anymore.– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 13:59
No you only need to synchronize
createBook however that will severely impact your performance and work with a single instance of your application. As soon as you deploy 2 instances it won't work anymore.– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 13:59
@M.Deinum so, for 2 instances work, what can i do? Any thing like
pessimist lock? Why cant i lock the database, so another instance can not write to it?– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 14:14
@M.Deinum so, for 2 instances work, what can i do? Any thing like
pessimist lock? Why cant i lock the database, so another instance can not write to it?– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 14:14
You could but that would severely impact your performance. As you will lock everything down.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 16:25
You could but that would severely impact your performance. As you will lock everything down.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 16:25
|
show 9 more comments
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53319595%2flock-repository-to-let-write-only-one-process%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53319595%2flock-repository-to-let-write-only-one-process%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
This is the reason you generally don't want to use table based increments. To solve this you would need to lock the table for the duration of the transaction. This will however impact your throughput as you now can only serve 1 transaction at a time. Adding
synchronizewon't help as you would need synchronize the wholecreateBookmethod.– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 12:40
@M.Deinum so if i put
synchronizedto bothgenerateReferenceandvreateBook, it works?– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 12:55
No you only need to synchronize
createBookhowever that will severely impact your performance and work with a single instance of your application. As soon as you deploy 2 instances it won't work anymore.– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 13:59
@M.Deinum so, for 2 instances work, what can i do? Any thing like
pessimist lock? Why cant i lock the database, so another instance can not write to it?– asdasasd
Nov 15 '18 at 14:14
You could but that would severely impact your performance. As you will lock everything down.
– M. Deinum
Nov 15 '18 at 16:25