Is it possible for SQL statements to execute concurrently within a single session in SQL Server?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
I have written a stored procedure which makes use of a temporary table. I know that in SQL Server, temporary tables are session-scoped. However, I have not been able to find definitive information on exactly what a session is capable of. In particular, if it is possible for this stored procedure to execute twice concurrently in a single session, a significantly higher isolation level is required for a transaction within that procedure due to the two executions now sharing a temporary table.
sql-server sql-server-2012
add a comment |
I have written a stored procedure which makes use of a temporary table. I know that in SQL Server, temporary tables are session-scoped. However, I have not been able to find definitive information on exactly what a session is capable of. In particular, if it is possible for this stored procedure to execute twice concurrently in a single session, a significantly higher isolation level is required for a transaction within that procedure due to the two executions now sharing a temporary table.
sql-server sql-server-2012
add a comment |
I have written a stored procedure which makes use of a temporary table. I know that in SQL Server, temporary tables are session-scoped. However, I have not been able to find definitive information on exactly what a session is capable of. In particular, if it is possible for this stored procedure to execute twice concurrently in a single session, a significantly higher isolation level is required for a transaction within that procedure due to the two executions now sharing a temporary table.
sql-server sql-server-2012
I have written a stored procedure which makes use of a temporary table. I know that in SQL Server, temporary tables are session-scoped. However, I have not been able to find definitive information on exactly what a session is capable of. In particular, if it is possible for this stored procedure to execute twice concurrently in a single session, a significantly higher isolation level is required for a transaction within that procedure due to the two executions now sharing a temporary table.
sql-server sql-server-2012
sql-server sql-server-2012
asked Apr 18 at 17:37
Trevor GiddingsTrevor Giddings
907
907
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
While Brent's answer is correct for for all practical purposes, and this is not something I've ever seen someone worry about, it is possible for multiple invocations of a stored procedure in a session to affect each other through a session-scoped #temp table.
The good news is it's extremely unlikely to happen in the wild because
1) #Temp tables declared inside a stored procedures or nested batches don't actually have session visibility (or lifetime). And these are by far the most common case.
2) It requires MultipleActiveResultsets and either some very strange async client programming, or for the stored procedure to return a resultset in the middle, and the client to call another instance of the stored procedure while processing the results from the first.
Here's a contrived example:
using System;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
namespace ado.nettest
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string args)
{
using (var con = new SqlConnection("Server=localhost;database=tempdb;integrated security=true;MultipleActiveResultSets = True"))
{
con.Open();
var procDdl = @"
create table #t(id int)
exec ('
create procedure #foo
as
begin
insert into #t(id) values (1);
select top 10000 * from sys.messages m, sys.messages m2;
select count(*) rc from #t;
delete from #t;
end
');
";
var cmdDDL = con.CreateCommand();
cmdDDL.CommandText = procDdl;
cmdDDL.ExecuteNonQuery();
var cmd = con.CreateCommand();
cmd.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader())
{
rdr.Read();
var cmd2 = con.CreateCommand();
cmd2.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr2 = cmd2.ExecuteReader())
{
}
while (rdr.Read())
{
}
rdr.NextResult();
rdr.Read();
var rc = rdr.GetInt32(0);
Console.WriteLine($"Numer of rows in temp table {rc}");
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Hit any key to exit");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
which outputs
Numer of rows in temp table 0
Hit any key to exit
because the second invocation of the stored procedure inserted a row, and then deleted all the rows from #t while the first invocation was waiting for the client to fetch the rows from its first resultset. Note that if the first resultset was small, the rows might get buffered and execution could continue without sending anything to the client.
If you move the
create table #t(id int)
into the stored procedure it outputs:
Numer of rows in temp table 1
Hit any key to exit
And with the temp table declared inside the procedure, if you change the second query to
cmd2.CommandText = "select * from #t";
It fails with:
'Invalid object name '#t'.'
Because a #temp table created inside a stored procedure or nested batch is only visible in that stored procedure or batch and in nested procedures and batches that it calls, and is destroyed when the procedure or batch ends.
2
As soon as I saw the question title I knew the answer was MARS.
– Joshua
Apr 18 at 22:21
1
"some very strange async client programming" Given the introduction of built in asych features to C#, are you certain that multiple queries running asynchronous won't become more common?
– jpmc26
Apr 20 at 13:29
Sure but usually the SqlConnection is not reused while the client is waiting for the command. That’s what would be strange.
– David Browne - Microsoft
Apr 20 at 13:57
add a comment |
Not concurrently. Your options include:
- Run the queries one after another in the same session
- Switch from a temp table to a global temp table (use ##TableName instead of #TableName), but be aware that the global temp table is automatically dropped when the session that created the temp table closes, and there are no other active sessions with a reference to it
- Switch to a real user table in TempDB - you can create tables there, but be aware that they'll disappear on server restart
- Switch to a real user table in a user database
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
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: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
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
});
}
});
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%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f235197%2fis-it-possible-for-sql-statements-to-execute-concurrently-within-a-single-sessio%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
While Brent's answer is correct for for all practical purposes, and this is not something I've ever seen someone worry about, it is possible for multiple invocations of a stored procedure in a session to affect each other through a session-scoped #temp table.
The good news is it's extremely unlikely to happen in the wild because
1) #Temp tables declared inside a stored procedures or nested batches don't actually have session visibility (or lifetime). And these are by far the most common case.
2) It requires MultipleActiveResultsets and either some very strange async client programming, or for the stored procedure to return a resultset in the middle, and the client to call another instance of the stored procedure while processing the results from the first.
Here's a contrived example:
using System;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
namespace ado.nettest
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string args)
{
using (var con = new SqlConnection("Server=localhost;database=tempdb;integrated security=true;MultipleActiveResultSets = True"))
{
con.Open();
var procDdl = @"
create table #t(id int)
exec ('
create procedure #foo
as
begin
insert into #t(id) values (1);
select top 10000 * from sys.messages m, sys.messages m2;
select count(*) rc from #t;
delete from #t;
end
');
";
var cmdDDL = con.CreateCommand();
cmdDDL.CommandText = procDdl;
cmdDDL.ExecuteNonQuery();
var cmd = con.CreateCommand();
cmd.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader())
{
rdr.Read();
var cmd2 = con.CreateCommand();
cmd2.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr2 = cmd2.ExecuteReader())
{
}
while (rdr.Read())
{
}
rdr.NextResult();
rdr.Read();
var rc = rdr.GetInt32(0);
Console.WriteLine($"Numer of rows in temp table {rc}");
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Hit any key to exit");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
which outputs
Numer of rows in temp table 0
Hit any key to exit
because the second invocation of the stored procedure inserted a row, and then deleted all the rows from #t while the first invocation was waiting for the client to fetch the rows from its first resultset. Note that if the first resultset was small, the rows might get buffered and execution could continue without sending anything to the client.
If you move the
create table #t(id int)
into the stored procedure it outputs:
Numer of rows in temp table 1
Hit any key to exit
And with the temp table declared inside the procedure, if you change the second query to
cmd2.CommandText = "select * from #t";
It fails with:
'Invalid object name '#t'.'
Because a #temp table created inside a stored procedure or nested batch is only visible in that stored procedure or batch and in nested procedures and batches that it calls, and is destroyed when the procedure or batch ends.
2
As soon as I saw the question title I knew the answer was MARS.
– Joshua
Apr 18 at 22:21
1
"some very strange async client programming" Given the introduction of built in asych features to C#, are you certain that multiple queries running asynchronous won't become more common?
– jpmc26
Apr 20 at 13:29
Sure but usually the SqlConnection is not reused while the client is waiting for the command. That’s what would be strange.
– David Browne - Microsoft
Apr 20 at 13:57
add a comment |
While Brent's answer is correct for for all practical purposes, and this is not something I've ever seen someone worry about, it is possible for multiple invocations of a stored procedure in a session to affect each other through a session-scoped #temp table.
The good news is it's extremely unlikely to happen in the wild because
1) #Temp tables declared inside a stored procedures or nested batches don't actually have session visibility (or lifetime). And these are by far the most common case.
2) It requires MultipleActiveResultsets and either some very strange async client programming, or for the stored procedure to return a resultset in the middle, and the client to call another instance of the stored procedure while processing the results from the first.
Here's a contrived example:
using System;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
namespace ado.nettest
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string args)
{
using (var con = new SqlConnection("Server=localhost;database=tempdb;integrated security=true;MultipleActiveResultSets = True"))
{
con.Open();
var procDdl = @"
create table #t(id int)
exec ('
create procedure #foo
as
begin
insert into #t(id) values (1);
select top 10000 * from sys.messages m, sys.messages m2;
select count(*) rc from #t;
delete from #t;
end
');
";
var cmdDDL = con.CreateCommand();
cmdDDL.CommandText = procDdl;
cmdDDL.ExecuteNonQuery();
var cmd = con.CreateCommand();
cmd.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader())
{
rdr.Read();
var cmd2 = con.CreateCommand();
cmd2.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr2 = cmd2.ExecuteReader())
{
}
while (rdr.Read())
{
}
rdr.NextResult();
rdr.Read();
var rc = rdr.GetInt32(0);
Console.WriteLine($"Numer of rows in temp table {rc}");
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Hit any key to exit");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
which outputs
Numer of rows in temp table 0
Hit any key to exit
because the second invocation of the stored procedure inserted a row, and then deleted all the rows from #t while the first invocation was waiting for the client to fetch the rows from its first resultset. Note that if the first resultset was small, the rows might get buffered and execution could continue without sending anything to the client.
If you move the
create table #t(id int)
into the stored procedure it outputs:
Numer of rows in temp table 1
Hit any key to exit
And with the temp table declared inside the procedure, if you change the second query to
cmd2.CommandText = "select * from #t";
It fails with:
'Invalid object name '#t'.'
Because a #temp table created inside a stored procedure or nested batch is only visible in that stored procedure or batch and in nested procedures and batches that it calls, and is destroyed when the procedure or batch ends.
2
As soon as I saw the question title I knew the answer was MARS.
– Joshua
Apr 18 at 22:21
1
"some very strange async client programming" Given the introduction of built in asych features to C#, are you certain that multiple queries running asynchronous won't become more common?
– jpmc26
Apr 20 at 13:29
Sure but usually the SqlConnection is not reused while the client is waiting for the command. That’s what would be strange.
– David Browne - Microsoft
Apr 20 at 13:57
add a comment |
While Brent's answer is correct for for all practical purposes, and this is not something I've ever seen someone worry about, it is possible for multiple invocations of a stored procedure in a session to affect each other through a session-scoped #temp table.
The good news is it's extremely unlikely to happen in the wild because
1) #Temp tables declared inside a stored procedures or nested batches don't actually have session visibility (or lifetime). And these are by far the most common case.
2) It requires MultipleActiveResultsets and either some very strange async client programming, or for the stored procedure to return a resultset in the middle, and the client to call another instance of the stored procedure while processing the results from the first.
Here's a contrived example:
using System;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
namespace ado.nettest
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string args)
{
using (var con = new SqlConnection("Server=localhost;database=tempdb;integrated security=true;MultipleActiveResultSets = True"))
{
con.Open();
var procDdl = @"
create table #t(id int)
exec ('
create procedure #foo
as
begin
insert into #t(id) values (1);
select top 10000 * from sys.messages m, sys.messages m2;
select count(*) rc from #t;
delete from #t;
end
');
";
var cmdDDL = con.CreateCommand();
cmdDDL.CommandText = procDdl;
cmdDDL.ExecuteNonQuery();
var cmd = con.CreateCommand();
cmd.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader())
{
rdr.Read();
var cmd2 = con.CreateCommand();
cmd2.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr2 = cmd2.ExecuteReader())
{
}
while (rdr.Read())
{
}
rdr.NextResult();
rdr.Read();
var rc = rdr.GetInt32(0);
Console.WriteLine($"Numer of rows in temp table {rc}");
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Hit any key to exit");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
which outputs
Numer of rows in temp table 0
Hit any key to exit
because the second invocation of the stored procedure inserted a row, and then deleted all the rows from #t while the first invocation was waiting for the client to fetch the rows from its first resultset. Note that if the first resultset was small, the rows might get buffered and execution could continue without sending anything to the client.
If you move the
create table #t(id int)
into the stored procedure it outputs:
Numer of rows in temp table 1
Hit any key to exit
And with the temp table declared inside the procedure, if you change the second query to
cmd2.CommandText = "select * from #t";
It fails with:
'Invalid object name '#t'.'
Because a #temp table created inside a stored procedure or nested batch is only visible in that stored procedure or batch and in nested procedures and batches that it calls, and is destroyed when the procedure or batch ends.
While Brent's answer is correct for for all practical purposes, and this is not something I've ever seen someone worry about, it is possible for multiple invocations of a stored procedure in a session to affect each other through a session-scoped #temp table.
The good news is it's extremely unlikely to happen in the wild because
1) #Temp tables declared inside a stored procedures or nested batches don't actually have session visibility (or lifetime). And these are by far the most common case.
2) It requires MultipleActiveResultsets and either some very strange async client programming, or for the stored procedure to return a resultset in the middle, and the client to call another instance of the stored procedure while processing the results from the first.
Here's a contrived example:
using System;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
namespace ado.nettest
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string args)
{
using (var con = new SqlConnection("Server=localhost;database=tempdb;integrated security=true;MultipleActiveResultSets = True"))
{
con.Open();
var procDdl = @"
create table #t(id int)
exec ('
create procedure #foo
as
begin
insert into #t(id) values (1);
select top 10000 * from sys.messages m, sys.messages m2;
select count(*) rc from #t;
delete from #t;
end
');
";
var cmdDDL = con.CreateCommand();
cmdDDL.CommandText = procDdl;
cmdDDL.ExecuteNonQuery();
var cmd = con.CreateCommand();
cmd.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr = cmd.ExecuteReader())
{
rdr.Read();
var cmd2 = con.CreateCommand();
cmd2.CommandText = "exec #foo";
using (var rdr2 = cmd2.ExecuteReader())
{
}
while (rdr.Read())
{
}
rdr.NextResult();
rdr.Read();
var rc = rdr.GetInt32(0);
Console.WriteLine($"Numer of rows in temp table {rc}");
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Hit any key to exit");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
which outputs
Numer of rows in temp table 0
Hit any key to exit
because the second invocation of the stored procedure inserted a row, and then deleted all the rows from #t while the first invocation was waiting for the client to fetch the rows from its first resultset. Note that if the first resultset was small, the rows might get buffered and execution could continue without sending anything to the client.
If you move the
create table #t(id int)
into the stored procedure it outputs:
Numer of rows in temp table 1
Hit any key to exit
And with the temp table declared inside the procedure, if you change the second query to
cmd2.CommandText = "select * from #t";
It fails with:
'Invalid object name '#t'.'
Because a #temp table created inside a stored procedure or nested batch is only visible in that stored procedure or batch and in nested procedures and batches that it calls, and is destroyed when the procedure or batch ends.
edited Apr 23 at 19:20
answered Apr 18 at 22:02
David Browne - MicrosoftDavid Browne - Microsoft
13.3k936
13.3k936
2
As soon as I saw the question title I knew the answer was MARS.
– Joshua
Apr 18 at 22:21
1
"some very strange async client programming" Given the introduction of built in asych features to C#, are you certain that multiple queries running asynchronous won't become more common?
– jpmc26
Apr 20 at 13:29
Sure but usually the SqlConnection is not reused while the client is waiting for the command. That’s what would be strange.
– David Browne - Microsoft
Apr 20 at 13:57
add a comment |
2
As soon as I saw the question title I knew the answer was MARS.
– Joshua
Apr 18 at 22:21
1
"some very strange async client programming" Given the introduction of built in asych features to C#, are you certain that multiple queries running asynchronous won't become more common?
– jpmc26
Apr 20 at 13:29
Sure but usually the SqlConnection is not reused while the client is waiting for the command. That’s what would be strange.
– David Browne - Microsoft
Apr 20 at 13:57
2
2
As soon as I saw the question title I knew the answer was MARS.
– Joshua
Apr 18 at 22:21
As soon as I saw the question title I knew the answer was MARS.
– Joshua
Apr 18 at 22:21
1
1
"some very strange async client programming" Given the introduction of built in asych features to C#, are you certain that multiple queries running asynchronous won't become more common?
– jpmc26
Apr 20 at 13:29
"some very strange async client programming" Given the introduction of built in asych features to C#, are you certain that multiple queries running asynchronous won't become more common?
– jpmc26
Apr 20 at 13:29
Sure but usually the SqlConnection is not reused while the client is waiting for the command. That’s what would be strange.
– David Browne - Microsoft
Apr 20 at 13:57
Sure but usually the SqlConnection is not reused while the client is waiting for the command. That’s what would be strange.
– David Browne - Microsoft
Apr 20 at 13:57
add a comment |
Not concurrently. Your options include:
- Run the queries one after another in the same session
- Switch from a temp table to a global temp table (use ##TableName instead of #TableName), but be aware that the global temp table is automatically dropped when the session that created the temp table closes, and there are no other active sessions with a reference to it
- Switch to a real user table in TempDB - you can create tables there, but be aware that they'll disappear on server restart
- Switch to a real user table in a user database
add a comment |
Not concurrently. Your options include:
- Run the queries one after another in the same session
- Switch from a temp table to a global temp table (use ##TableName instead of #TableName), but be aware that the global temp table is automatically dropped when the session that created the temp table closes, and there are no other active sessions with a reference to it
- Switch to a real user table in TempDB - you can create tables there, but be aware that they'll disappear on server restart
- Switch to a real user table in a user database
add a comment |
Not concurrently. Your options include:
- Run the queries one after another in the same session
- Switch from a temp table to a global temp table (use ##TableName instead of #TableName), but be aware that the global temp table is automatically dropped when the session that created the temp table closes, and there are no other active sessions with a reference to it
- Switch to a real user table in TempDB - you can create tables there, but be aware that they'll disappear on server restart
- Switch to a real user table in a user database
Not concurrently. Your options include:
- Run the queries one after another in the same session
- Switch from a temp table to a global temp table (use ##TableName instead of #TableName), but be aware that the global temp table is automatically dropped when the session that created the temp table closes, and there are no other active sessions with a reference to it
- Switch to a real user table in TempDB - you can create tables there, but be aware that they'll disappear on server restart
- Switch to a real user table in a user database
answered Apr 18 at 17:41
Brent OzarBrent Ozar
36.2k19113249
36.2k19113249
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- 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.
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%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f235197%2fis-it-possible-for-sql-statements-to-execute-concurrently-within-a-single-sessio%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