Imagine trying to book the very last seat on a popular flight online. At the exact same moment, another person clicks “confirm” for the same seat. How does the system ensure only one booking goes through and the database remains accurate? This scenario highlights the core challenge of database concurrency.
In today’s world, almost every application interacts with databases accessed by multiple users or processes simultaneously. Database concurrency is the ability of a Database Management System (DBMS) to handle these simultaneous operations efficiently while maintaining data integrity and consistency. For developers, DevOps engineers, and SREs, understanding concurrency is vital for building reliable and performant applications. Let’s explore what concurrency entails, the problems it can cause if unmanaged, and the techniques used to control it.
What is Database Concurrency?
At its heart, database concurrency refers to the capability of a database to allow multiple transactions (sequences of operations) to access and modify shared data seemingly at the same time. Without concurrency, transactions would have to run one after another (serially), severely limiting the throughput and responsiveness of any multi-user application.
The goal isn’t just to allow simultaneous access but to do so while preserving the fundamental ACID properties (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability) of transactions. This ensures that even with multiple operations happening in parallel, the database transitions from one consistent state to another.
Why is Concurrency Needed?
Managing concurrency is essential for several reasons:
- Increased Throughput: More transactions can be processed in a given amount of time, improving overall system performance.
- Better Resource Utilization: System resources like CPU, memory, and I/O are used more effectively instead of sitting idle while waiting for one transaction to complete.
- Reduced Waiting Time: Users experience shorter delays as their transactions don’t necessarily have to wait for others to finish completely.
- Improved Response Time: The time taken for a transaction to start processing and provide an initial response is reduced.
In essence, concurrency transforms a database from a single-lane road into a multi-lane highway, allowing more traffic (transactions) to flow simultaneously.
Common Concurrency Problems
Allowing transactions to execute concurrently without proper management can lead to several data inconsistency issues. These problems arise when transactions interfere with each other’s operations on shared data:
Dirty Reads
A dirty read occurs when a transaction (say, T2) reads data that has been modified by another transaction (T1) but has not yet been committed. If T1 subsequently fails and rolls back its changes, T2 is left holding incorrect, “dirty” data that never technically existed in the stable database state.
- Example: Transaction T1 updates a product’s stock level from 10 to 8. Before T1 commits, Transaction T2 reads the stock level as 8 for a report. T1 then fails and rolls back, restoring the stock level to 10. T2’s report now contains an inaccurate stock level of 8.
Lost Updates
This problem happens when two transactions read the same data item, modify it independently, and then write their changes back. The second transaction to write effectively overwrites the update made by the first transaction, causing the first update to be “lost.”
- Example: Both T1 and T2 read an account balance of $500.
- T1 calculates a new balance of $400 (a $100 withdrawal).
- T2 calculates a new balance of $600 (a $100 deposit).
- T1 writes its $400 balance.
- T2 writes its $600 balance, overwriting T1’s update. The final balance is $600, incorrectly reflecting only the deposit; the $100 withdrawal is lost. The correct balance should have been $500 - $100 + $100 = $500.
Unrepeatable Reads (Non-Repeatable Reads)
An unrepeatable read occurs when a transaction reads the same data item twice but gets different values because another committed transaction modified the data between the reads. The original read becomes “unrepeatable.”
- Example: Transaction T1 reads the price of an item as $20. Transaction T2 then updates the price to $25 and commits. If T1 reads the price of the same item again within the same transaction, it will now see $25. This inconsistency within T1 might cause issues if calculations were based on the initial $20 value.
Phantom Reads
A phantom read is similar to an unrepeatable read but applies to a set of rows. It occurs when a transaction executes a query twice, and the second execution returns a different set of rows satisfying the query criteria because another committed transaction inserted or deleted rows that match the criteria. The newly appeared or disappeared rows are called “phantoms.”
- Example: Transaction T1 queries for all employees in the ‘Sales’ department and finds 5 employees. Transaction T2 then inserts a new employee record for the ‘Sales’ department and commits. If T1 repeats its query within the same transaction, it will now find 6 employees. The new employee is the “phantom.”
Deadlocks
A deadlock occurs when two or more transactions are blocked indefinitely, each waiting for a resource (like a lock on a data row) held by the other.
- Example: Transaction T1 locks resource A and requests resource B. Transaction T2 locks resource B and requests resource A. Neither can proceed because each is waiting for the other to release its lock.
Concurrency Control Techniques
To prevent these problems and ensure data integrity while allowing concurrent execution, DBMSs employ concurrency control techniques. The goal is typically to achieve serializability – ensuring that the outcome of executing transactions concurrently is identical to some serial (one-after-another) execution of those same transactions.
Common techniques include:
Lock-Based Protocols
This is one of the most common methods. Transactions must acquire locks on data items before accessing them. Locks can be:
- Shared (Read) Locks: Multiple transactions can hold a shared lock on the same item simultaneously, allowing them to read but not write.
- Exclusive (Write) Locks: Only one transaction can hold an exclusive lock on an item at a time. This is required for writing (updating or deleting). If a transaction holds an exclusive lock, no other transaction can acquire any lock (shared or exclusive) on that item.
By managing how locks are acquired and released (e.g., Two-Phase Locking - 2PL), these protocols prevent conflicts. However, they can lead to deadlocks, which the DBMS must detect and resolve (often by aborting one of the deadlocked transactions).
Timestamp-Based Protocols
Instead of locks, transactions are assigned unique, typically increasing timestamps when they start. The DBMS uses these timestamps to determine the execution order for conflicting operations. If two transactions conflict, the operation of the transaction with the older timestamp is generally given priority, potentially causing the younger transaction to roll back and restart. This avoids deadlocks but can lead to more transaction restarts.
Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC)
Popular in databases like PostgreSQL, Oracle, and MySQL (with InnoDB), MVCC maintains multiple versions of data items. When a transaction needs to read data, it reads the version that was current when the transaction started. When a transaction writes data, it creates a new version instead of overwriting the old one immediately.
This approach allows readers and writers to operate concurrently without blocking each other, significantly improving performance for read-heavy workloads. Old versions are eventually cleaned up. MVCC effectively prevents dirty reads and typically avoids lost updates and unrepeatable reads without traditional locking for read operations.
Optimistic Concurrency Control
This technique operates under the assumption that conflicts between transactions are rare. Transactions proceed without acquiring locks. Before committing, the transaction checks if any other committed transaction has modified the data it accessed. If a conflict is detected, the transaction rolls back; otherwise, it commits. This can be efficient when conflicts are infrequent but can lead to high rollback rates in high-contention scenarios.
Choosing the Right Technique
The specific concurrency control mechanism used often depends on the database system itself (e.g., PostgreSQL heavily relies on MVCC). Database administrators and developers can sometimes influence concurrency behavior by setting transaction isolation levels. These levels (like Read Uncommitted, Read Committed, Repeatable Read, Serializable) define the degree to which one transaction must be isolated from the effects of others, effectively allowing a trade-off between performance and the types of concurrency problems permitted. Higher isolation levels prevent more problems but can reduce concurrency.
Database concurrency is fundamental to the performance and usability of modern multi-user database systems. While allowing simultaneous operations boosts efficiency and throughput, it introduces potential pitfalls like dirty reads, lost updates, unrepeatable reads, and phantom reads that can compromise data integrity.
Database concurrency control techniques, such as locking, timestamp ordering, and MVCC, are essential mechanisms implemented by DBMSs to manage parallel access safely, typically aiming for serializability while preserving ACID properties. Understanding these concepts helps developers and SREs design better applications, diagnose performance issues, and configure database systems appropriately.
Effective monitoring is crucial for understanding how concurrency affects your database performance, identifying bottlenecks, and diagnosing issues like lock contention or high transaction rollback rates.
Gain deep insights into your database performance and concurrency behavior with Netdata’s real-time monitoring. Sign up for free today and take control of your database health.