ORM's and Locking (Part 2)

by coatta 2/3/2009 9:15:00 PM

Back in January I wrote about some of my initial experiences with ORM's and deadlocks. By explicitly marking each transaction as being either read or write we were able to solve a large number of deadlocks that cropped up in our initial testing. In fact, that tactic was good enough to take the system live. Even with people accessing the system on a regular basis we did not see any deadlocks. This lulled me into a false sense of security that I wouldn't have to think about deadlocks any more. In hindsight I can't imagine why I thought this -- self-delusion rears its ugly head again.

Anyhow, after a while we got around to stress testing the system; pushing one or two orders of magnitude more data through the system than was typical. Once again the deadlocks started cropping up. To make this part of the story short, it finally occurred to me that all the usual sorts of deadlocks that I had grown to love when programming directly with locks were just as possible in an ORM-based system with the locking done by the database. Locks acquired in the wrong order, read locks acquired when write locks should have been, etc.

But even though the issues are fundamentally the same, the experience is quite different. There are a number of reasons for this:

  1. The database has much nicer tools for dealing with deadlocks. In the first place, it doesn't actually deadlock, it notices that a deadlock exists and aborts one of the transactions. Second, it has very nice tools that identify the exact cause of the deadlock (at least SQL Server does, I assume other DB's do too) - that is, it will identify the resources in conflict, the cycle of resources held/requested that created the deadlock, and the statements associated with the resource requests.
  2. To compensate for this somewhat, the connection between your code and the underlying SQL is indirect. The ORM is responsible for generating the SQL statements that the DB executes, and its not always obvious which SQL statements are associated with particular operations in the code. Not only does one have to have a good grasp of the underlying mapping of objects to the DB, its also necessary to understand how the ORM moves data back and forth between the objects in memory and the DB.
  3. An extension of this last point is that the ORM can make it hard to resolve some locking issues. For example, the particular version of NHibernate that we are using always uses read locks when it is pulling in collection data. This is done implicitly as part of loading an object and there isn't a way to force it to use an update lock which is necessary if elements of the collection are written to later in the transaction. Similarly, if you're working directly with locks a fairly common technique to decrease contention is to release locks before the end of a transaction when that doesn't compromise serializability -- a technique that may not be available to you with your ORM.

Overall, I find the experience with the ORM to be positive in the balance. Its certainly made it easier for us to program without thinking explicitly about locking most of the time. But as with any layer of abstraction, it tends to complicate things when things get complicated :-)


<<  June 2024  >>

View posts in large calendar


My opinions are my own, but you can borrow them if you like.

© Copyright 2024

Sign in