Is this INSERT likely to cause any locking/concurrency issues?

In an effort to avoid auto sequence numbers and the like for one reason or another in this particular database, I wondered if anyone could see any problems with this:

INSERT INTO user (label, username, password, user_id)
SELECT 'Test', 'test', 'test', COALESCE(MAX(user_id)+1, 1) FROM user;

I'm using PostgreSQL (but also trying to be as database agnostic as possible)..

EDIT: There's two reasons for me wanting to do this.

• Keeping dependency on any particular RDBMS low.
• Not having to worry about updating sequences if the data is batch-updated to a central database.

Insert performance is not an issue as the only tables where this will be needed are set-up tables.

EDIT-2: The idea I'm playing with is that each table in the database have a human-generated SiteCode as part of their key, so we always have a compound key. This effectively partitions the data on SiteCode and would allow taking the data from a particular site and putting it somewhere else (obviously on the same database structure). For instance, this would allow backing up of various operational sites onto one central database, but also allow that central database to have operational sites using it. I could still use sequences, but it seems messy. The actual INSERT would look more like this:

INSERT INTO user (sitecode, label, username, password, user_id)
SELECT 'SITE001', 'Test', 'test', 'test', COALESCE(MAX(user_id)+1, 1)
FROM user
WHERE sitecode='SITE001';

If that makes sense.. I've done something similar before and it worked fine, however the central database in that case was never operational (it was more of a way of centrally viewing data / analyzing) so it did not need to generate ids.

EDIT-3: I'm starting to think it'd be simpler to only ever allow the centralised database to be either active-only or backup-only, thus avoidin开发者_开发技巧g the problem completely and allowing a more simple design.

Oh well back to the drawing board!

There are a couple of points:

• Postgres uses Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC) so Readers are never waiting on writers and vice versa. But there is of course a serialization that happens upon each write. If you are going to load a bulk of data into the system, then look at the COPY command. It is much faster than running a large swab of INSERT statements.
• The MAX(user_id) can be answered with an index, and probably is, if there is an index on the user_id column. But the real problem is that if two transactions start at the same time, they will see the same MAX(user_id) value. It leads me to the next point:
• The canonical way of handling numbers like user_id's is by using SEQUENCE's. These essentially are a place where you can draw the next user id from. If you are really worried about performance on generating the next sequence number, you can generate a batch of them per thread and then only request a new batch when it is exhausted (sometimes called a HiLo sequence).
• You may be wanting to have user_id's packed up nice and tight as increasing numbers, but I think you should try to get rid of that. The reason is that deleting a user_id will create a hole anyway. So i'd not worry too much if the sequences were not strictly increasing.

Yes, I can see a huge problem. Don't do it.

Multiple connections can get the EXACT SAME id at the same time. I was going to add "under load" but it doesn't even need to be - just need the right timing between two queries.

To avoid it, you can use transactions or locking mechanisms or isolation levels specific to each DB, but once we get to that stage, you might as well use the dbms-specific sequence/identity/autonumber etc.

EDIT

For question edit2, there is no reason to fear gaps in the user_id, so you have one sequence across all sites. If gaps are ok, some options are

• use guaranteed update statements, such as (in SQL Server)

update tblsitesequenceno set @nextnum = nextnum = nextnum + 1

Multiple callers to this statement are each guaranteed to get a unique number.

• use a single table that produces the identity/sequence/autonumber (db specific)

If you cannot have gaps at all, consider using a transaction mechanism that will restrict access while you are running the max() query. Either that or use a proliferation of (sequences/tables with identity columns/tables with autonumber) that you manipulate using dynamic SQL using the same technique for a single sequence.

By all means use a sequence to generate unique numbers. They are fast, transaction safe and reliable.

Any self-written implemention of a "sequence generator" is either not scalable for a multi-user environment (because you need to do heavy locking) or simply not correct.

If you do need to be DBMS independent, then create an abstraction layer that uses sequences for those DBMS that support them (Posgres, Oracle, Firebird, DB2, Ingres, Informix, ...) and a self written generator on those that don't.

Trying to create a system than is DBMS independent, simply means it will run equally slow on all systems if you don't exploit the advantages of each DBMS.

Your goal is a good one. Avoiding IDENTITY and AUTOINCREMENT columns means avoiding a whole plethora of administration problems. Here is just one example of the many.

• However most responders at SO will not appreciate it, the popular (as opposed to technical) response is "always stick an Id AUTOINCREMENT column on everything that moves".

• A next-sequential number is fine, all vendors have optimised it.

• As long as this code is inside a Transaction, as it should be, two users will not get the same MAX()+1 value. There is a concept called Isolation Level which needs to be understood when coding Transactions.

• Getting away from user_id and onto a more meaningful key such as ShortName or State plus UserNo is even better (the former spreads the contention, latter avoids the next-sequential contention altogether, relevant for high volume systems).

• What MVCC promises, and what it actually delivers, are two different things. Just surf the net or search SO to view the hundreds of problems re PostcreSQL/MVCC. In the realm of computers, the laws of physics applies, nothing is free. MVCC stores private copies of all rows touched, and resolves collisions at the end of the Transaction, resulting in far more Rollbacks. Whereas 2PL blocks at the beginning of the Transaction, and waits, without the massive storage of copies.

  • most people with actual experience of MVCC do not recommend it for high contention, high volume systems.

The first example code block is fine.

As per Comments, this item no longer applies: The second example code block has an issue. "SITE001" is not a compound key, it is a compounded column. Do not do that, separate "SITE" and "001" into two discrete columns. And if "SITE" is a fixed, repeatingvalue, it can be eliminated.

Different users can have the same user_id, concurrent SELECT-statements will see the same MAX(user_id).

If you don't want to use a SEQUENCE, you have to use an extra table with a single record and update this single record every time you need a new unique id:

CREATE TABLE my_sequence(id INT);

BEGIN;
UPDATE my_sequence SET id = COALESCE(id, 0) + 1;
INSERT INTO 
  user (label, username, password, user_id)
SELECT 'Test', 'test', 'test', id FROM my_sequence;
COMMIT;

I agree with maksymko, but not because I dislike sequences or autoincrementing numbers, as they have their place. If you need a value to be unique throughout your "various operational sites" i.e. not only within the confines of the single database instance, a globally unique identifier is a robust, simple solution.