Why does this RX-X lock not appear in Extended Events?Is there a more helpful way to detect lock acquire/release stats in SQL Profiler?Synchronize Queries Retrieving Sessions And Locks From DMVsHold exclusive lock on a whole DBCan I rely on reading SQL Server Identity values in order?What interval does SQL Server Profiler's “duration” refer to?Extended Events filteringExtended event for lock count does not show locksWhy adding FOREIGN KEY constraint does not lock the tableSQL Server Exclusive(X) lock not consistently blocking Shared(S) lock on a resourceWhy does an UPDATE to a full-text-indexed column lock the full text index?
Is The Lion King live action film made in motion capture?
Double blind peer review when paper cites author's GitHub repo for code
Blocking people from taking pictures of me with smartphone
As a 16 year old, how can I keep my money safe from my mother?
Is it really ~648.69 km/s delta-v to "land" on the surface of the Sun?
Improving software when the author can see no need for improvement
Sierpinski turtle triangle
Is it true that control+alt+delete only became a thing because IBM would not build Bill Gates a computer with a task manager button?
Acceptable to cut steak before searing?
Does a code snippet compile? Or does it gets compiled?
What is the best way to cause swarm intelligence to be destroyed?
Why does Intel's Haswell chip allow multiplication to be twice as fast as addition?
Can I call myself an assistant professor without a PhD
Are any jet engines used in combat aircraft water cooled?
Replace data between quotes in a file
How to precisely measure small charges?
Why should we care about syntactic proofs if we can show semantically that statements are true?
In a topological space if there exists a loop that cannot be contracted to a point does there exist a simple loop that cannot be contracted also?
How can glass marbles naturally occur in a desert?
How do we avoid CI-driven development...?
How to display a duet in lyrics?
sed delete all the words before a match
Is there a loss of quality when converting RGB to HEX?
Ordering a word list
Why does this RX-X lock not appear in Extended Events?
Is there a more helpful way to detect lock acquire/release stats in SQL Profiler?Synchronize Queries Retrieving Sessions And Locks From DMVsHold exclusive lock on a whole DBCan I rely on reading SQL Server Identity values in order?What interval does SQL Server Profiler's “duration” refer to?Extended Events filteringExtended event for lock count does not show locksWhy adding FOREIGN KEY constraint does not lock the tableSQL Server Exclusive(X) lock not consistently blocking Shared(S) lock on a resourceWhy does an UPDATE to a full-text-indexed column lock the full text index?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
The Problem
I have a pair of queries that, under serializable isolation, cause an RX-X lock. However, when I use Extended Events to watch lock acquisition, the RX-X lock acquisition never appears, it is only released. Where does it come from?
The Repro
Here's my table:
CREATE TABLE dbo.LockTest (
ID int identity,
Junk char(4)
)
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX CX_LockTest --not unique!
ON dbo.LockTest(ID)
--preload some rows
INSERT dbo.LockTest
VALUES ('data'),('data'),('data')
Here's my problem batch:
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRAN
INSERT dbo.LockTest
VALUES ('bleh')
SELECT *
FROM dbo.LockTest
WHERE ID = SCOPE_IDENTITY()
--ROLLBACK
I check locks held by this session, and see RX-X:
SELECT resource_type, request_mode, request_status, resource_description
FROM sys.dm_tran_locks
WHERE request_session_id = 72 --change SPID!
But I also have an Extended Event on lock_acquired
and lock_released
. I filter it on the appropriate associated_object_id...there's no RX-X.
After executing the rollback, I see RX-X (LAST_MODE) released, even though it was never acquired.
What I've Tried
I looked at all locks in Extended Events - no filtering. No RX-X locks acquired.
I also tried Profiler: same results (except of course it gets the name right...no "LAST_MODE").
I ran the XE for lock escalations - it's not there.
There's no XE specifically for conversions, but I was able to confirm that at least the U to X lock conversion is captured by
lock_acquired
Also of note is the RI-N that gets acquired but never released. My current hypothesis is that the RX-X is a conversion lock, as described here. There are overlapping key-range locks in my batch that look like they should qualify for conversion, but the RX-X lock isn't in the conversion table.
Where is this lock coming from, and why isn't it picked up by Extended Events?
sql-server locking sql-server-2017
add a comment |
The Problem
I have a pair of queries that, under serializable isolation, cause an RX-X lock. However, when I use Extended Events to watch lock acquisition, the RX-X lock acquisition never appears, it is only released. Where does it come from?
The Repro
Here's my table:
CREATE TABLE dbo.LockTest (
ID int identity,
Junk char(4)
)
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX CX_LockTest --not unique!
ON dbo.LockTest(ID)
--preload some rows
INSERT dbo.LockTest
VALUES ('data'),('data'),('data')
Here's my problem batch:
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRAN
INSERT dbo.LockTest
VALUES ('bleh')
SELECT *
FROM dbo.LockTest
WHERE ID = SCOPE_IDENTITY()
--ROLLBACK
I check locks held by this session, and see RX-X:
SELECT resource_type, request_mode, request_status, resource_description
FROM sys.dm_tran_locks
WHERE request_session_id = 72 --change SPID!
But I also have an Extended Event on lock_acquired
and lock_released
. I filter it on the appropriate associated_object_id...there's no RX-X.
After executing the rollback, I see RX-X (LAST_MODE) released, even though it was never acquired.
What I've Tried
I looked at all locks in Extended Events - no filtering. No RX-X locks acquired.
I also tried Profiler: same results (except of course it gets the name right...no "LAST_MODE").
I ran the XE for lock escalations - it's not there.
There's no XE specifically for conversions, but I was able to confirm that at least the U to X lock conversion is captured by
lock_acquired
Also of note is the RI-N that gets acquired but never released. My current hypothesis is that the RX-X is a conversion lock, as described here. There are overlapping key-range locks in my batch that look like they should qualify for conversion, but the RX-X lock isn't in the conversion table.
Where is this lock coming from, and why isn't it picked up by Extended Events?
sql-server locking sql-server-2017
add a comment |
The Problem
I have a pair of queries that, under serializable isolation, cause an RX-X lock. However, when I use Extended Events to watch lock acquisition, the RX-X lock acquisition never appears, it is only released. Where does it come from?
The Repro
Here's my table:
CREATE TABLE dbo.LockTest (
ID int identity,
Junk char(4)
)
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX CX_LockTest --not unique!
ON dbo.LockTest(ID)
--preload some rows
INSERT dbo.LockTest
VALUES ('data'),('data'),('data')
Here's my problem batch:
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRAN
INSERT dbo.LockTest
VALUES ('bleh')
SELECT *
FROM dbo.LockTest
WHERE ID = SCOPE_IDENTITY()
--ROLLBACK
I check locks held by this session, and see RX-X:
SELECT resource_type, request_mode, request_status, resource_description
FROM sys.dm_tran_locks
WHERE request_session_id = 72 --change SPID!
But I also have an Extended Event on lock_acquired
and lock_released
. I filter it on the appropriate associated_object_id...there's no RX-X.
After executing the rollback, I see RX-X (LAST_MODE) released, even though it was never acquired.
What I've Tried
I looked at all locks in Extended Events - no filtering. No RX-X locks acquired.
I also tried Profiler: same results (except of course it gets the name right...no "LAST_MODE").
I ran the XE for lock escalations - it's not there.
There's no XE specifically for conversions, but I was able to confirm that at least the U to X lock conversion is captured by
lock_acquired
Also of note is the RI-N that gets acquired but never released. My current hypothesis is that the RX-X is a conversion lock, as described here. There are overlapping key-range locks in my batch that look like they should qualify for conversion, but the RX-X lock isn't in the conversion table.
Where is this lock coming from, and why isn't it picked up by Extended Events?
sql-server locking sql-server-2017
The Problem
I have a pair of queries that, under serializable isolation, cause an RX-X lock. However, when I use Extended Events to watch lock acquisition, the RX-X lock acquisition never appears, it is only released. Where does it come from?
The Repro
Here's my table:
CREATE TABLE dbo.LockTest (
ID int identity,
Junk char(4)
)
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX CX_LockTest --not unique!
ON dbo.LockTest(ID)
--preload some rows
INSERT dbo.LockTest
VALUES ('data'),('data'),('data')
Here's my problem batch:
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE
BEGIN TRAN
INSERT dbo.LockTest
VALUES ('bleh')
SELECT *
FROM dbo.LockTest
WHERE ID = SCOPE_IDENTITY()
--ROLLBACK
I check locks held by this session, and see RX-X:
SELECT resource_type, request_mode, request_status, resource_description
FROM sys.dm_tran_locks
WHERE request_session_id = 72 --change SPID!
But I also have an Extended Event on lock_acquired
and lock_released
. I filter it on the appropriate associated_object_id...there's no RX-X.
After executing the rollback, I see RX-X (LAST_MODE) released, even though it was never acquired.
What I've Tried
I looked at all locks in Extended Events - no filtering. No RX-X locks acquired.
I also tried Profiler: same results (except of course it gets the name right...no "LAST_MODE").
I ran the XE for lock escalations - it's not there.
There's no XE specifically for conversions, but I was able to confirm that at least the U to X lock conversion is captured by
lock_acquired
Also of note is the RI-N that gets acquired but never released. My current hypothesis is that the RX-X is a conversion lock, as described here. There are overlapping key-range locks in my batch that look like they should qualify for conversion, but the RX-X lock isn't in the conversion table.
Where is this lock coming from, and why isn't it picked up by Extended Events?
sql-server locking sql-server-2017
sql-server locking sql-server-2017
asked Jul 29 at 16:20
ForrestForrest
3,2361 gold badge9 silver badges27 bronze badges
3,2361 gold badge9 silver badges27 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The single row insert acquires an X
(exclusive) lock on the new row.
The SELECT
attempts to acquire a range-shared, key shared (RangeS-S
) lock.
This request is reported by the lock_acquired
Extended Event as mode = RS_S
.
It is reported by the Profiler event class Lock:Acquired
as mode 13 (LCK_M_RS_S
).
The requested mode is combined with the existing exclusive lock mode in Lock::CalculateGrantMode
in sqlmin.dll
. There is no combined mode of range-shared, key exclusive (RangeS-X
) so the outcome of the calculation is range-exclusive, key exclusive (RangeX-X
), which happens to be mode 15.
The grant mode calculation above is performed just before the extended event is generated by lck_ProduceExtendedEvent<XeSqlPkg::lock_acquired>
. Nevertheless, both Profiler and Extended Events log the requested RangeS-S
mode, not the resulting lock mode RangeX-X
. This is counter to the limited documentation, which says:
Mode | int | Resulting mode after the lock was acquired.
The mode column of the extended event has no documentation at all, and the description in the meta data is blank. Perhaps Microsoft themselves weren't even sure of the behaviour.
I have often thought it would be more useful if lock events reported both the requested and resulting modes, but that is not what we have. The current arrangement makes it pretty much impossible to track and match up lock acquisition and release.
There might be a good reason for reporting locks this way. If it doesn't meet your needs, you could open a support case with Microsoft, or create an Azure Feedback item.
LAST_MODE
The mysterious LAST_MODE
is something Erik Darling has remarked on before. It is the highest map_key
value in the list of lock modes exposed by sys.dm_xe_map_values
:
SELECT
DXMV.map_key,
DXMV.map_value
FROM sys.dm_xe_map_values AS DXMV
WHERE
DXMV.[name] = N'lock_mode'
ORDER BY
DXMV.map_key;
╔═════════╦═══════════╗
║ map_key ║ map_value ║
╠═════════╬═══════════╣
║ 0 ║ NL ║
║ 1 ║ SCH_S ║
║ 2 ║ SCH_M ║
║ 3 ║ S ║
║ 4 ║ U ║
║ 5 ║ X ║
║ 6 ║ IS ║
║ 7 ║ IU ║
║ 8 ║ IX ║
║ 9 ║ SIU ║
║ 10 ║ SIX ║
║ 11 ║ UIX ║
║ 12 ║ BU ║
║ 13 ║ RS_S ║
║ 14 ║ RS_U ║
║ 15 ║ RI_NL ║
║ 16 ║ RI_S ║
║ 17 ║ RI_U ║
║ 18 ║ RI_X ║
║ 19 ║ RX_S ║
║ 20 ║ RX_U ║
║ 21 ║ LAST_MODE ║
╚═════════╩═══════════╝
The memory structure accessed via the DMV (using sqlmin!CMapValuesTable
) is stored starting at the address sqlmin!XeSqlPkg::g_lock_mode
. Each 16-byte entry in the structure contains the map_key
and a pointer to the string returned as map_value
by the streaming TVF.
The strings are stored exactly as shown in the table above (though not in that order). It seems to be an error that entry 21 has a map_value
of "LAST_MODE" instead of the expected "RX_X".
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%2f244054%2fwhy-does-this-rx-x-lock-not-appear-in-extended-events%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The single row insert acquires an X
(exclusive) lock on the new row.
The SELECT
attempts to acquire a range-shared, key shared (RangeS-S
) lock.
This request is reported by the lock_acquired
Extended Event as mode = RS_S
.
It is reported by the Profiler event class Lock:Acquired
as mode 13 (LCK_M_RS_S
).
The requested mode is combined with the existing exclusive lock mode in Lock::CalculateGrantMode
in sqlmin.dll
. There is no combined mode of range-shared, key exclusive (RangeS-X
) so the outcome of the calculation is range-exclusive, key exclusive (RangeX-X
), which happens to be mode 15.
The grant mode calculation above is performed just before the extended event is generated by lck_ProduceExtendedEvent<XeSqlPkg::lock_acquired>
. Nevertheless, both Profiler and Extended Events log the requested RangeS-S
mode, not the resulting lock mode RangeX-X
. This is counter to the limited documentation, which says:
Mode | int | Resulting mode after the lock was acquired.
The mode column of the extended event has no documentation at all, and the description in the meta data is blank. Perhaps Microsoft themselves weren't even sure of the behaviour.
I have often thought it would be more useful if lock events reported both the requested and resulting modes, but that is not what we have. The current arrangement makes it pretty much impossible to track and match up lock acquisition and release.
There might be a good reason for reporting locks this way. If it doesn't meet your needs, you could open a support case with Microsoft, or create an Azure Feedback item.
LAST_MODE
The mysterious LAST_MODE
is something Erik Darling has remarked on before. It is the highest map_key
value in the list of lock modes exposed by sys.dm_xe_map_values
:
SELECT
DXMV.map_key,
DXMV.map_value
FROM sys.dm_xe_map_values AS DXMV
WHERE
DXMV.[name] = N'lock_mode'
ORDER BY
DXMV.map_key;
╔═════════╦═══════════╗
║ map_key ║ map_value ║
╠═════════╬═══════════╣
║ 0 ║ NL ║
║ 1 ║ SCH_S ║
║ 2 ║ SCH_M ║
║ 3 ║ S ║
║ 4 ║ U ║
║ 5 ║ X ║
║ 6 ║ IS ║
║ 7 ║ IU ║
║ 8 ║ IX ║
║ 9 ║ SIU ║
║ 10 ║ SIX ║
║ 11 ║ UIX ║
║ 12 ║ BU ║
║ 13 ║ RS_S ║
║ 14 ║ RS_U ║
║ 15 ║ RI_NL ║
║ 16 ║ RI_S ║
║ 17 ║ RI_U ║
║ 18 ║ RI_X ║
║ 19 ║ RX_S ║
║ 20 ║ RX_U ║
║ 21 ║ LAST_MODE ║
╚═════════╩═══════════╝
The memory structure accessed via the DMV (using sqlmin!CMapValuesTable
) is stored starting at the address sqlmin!XeSqlPkg::g_lock_mode
. Each 16-byte entry in the structure contains the map_key
and a pointer to the string returned as map_value
by the streaming TVF.
The strings are stored exactly as shown in the table above (though not in that order). It seems to be an error that entry 21 has a map_value
of "LAST_MODE" instead of the expected "RX_X".
add a comment |
The single row insert acquires an X
(exclusive) lock on the new row.
The SELECT
attempts to acquire a range-shared, key shared (RangeS-S
) lock.
This request is reported by the lock_acquired
Extended Event as mode = RS_S
.
It is reported by the Profiler event class Lock:Acquired
as mode 13 (LCK_M_RS_S
).
The requested mode is combined with the existing exclusive lock mode in Lock::CalculateGrantMode
in sqlmin.dll
. There is no combined mode of range-shared, key exclusive (RangeS-X
) so the outcome of the calculation is range-exclusive, key exclusive (RangeX-X
), which happens to be mode 15.
The grant mode calculation above is performed just before the extended event is generated by lck_ProduceExtendedEvent<XeSqlPkg::lock_acquired>
. Nevertheless, both Profiler and Extended Events log the requested RangeS-S
mode, not the resulting lock mode RangeX-X
. This is counter to the limited documentation, which says:
Mode | int | Resulting mode after the lock was acquired.
The mode column of the extended event has no documentation at all, and the description in the meta data is blank. Perhaps Microsoft themselves weren't even sure of the behaviour.
I have often thought it would be more useful if lock events reported both the requested and resulting modes, but that is not what we have. The current arrangement makes it pretty much impossible to track and match up lock acquisition and release.
There might be a good reason for reporting locks this way. If it doesn't meet your needs, you could open a support case with Microsoft, or create an Azure Feedback item.
LAST_MODE
The mysterious LAST_MODE
is something Erik Darling has remarked on before. It is the highest map_key
value in the list of lock modes exposed by sys.dm_xe_map_values
:
SELECT
DXMV.map_key,
DXMV.map_value
FROM sys.dm_xe_map_values AS DXMV
WHERE
DXMV.[name] = N'lock_mode'
ORDER BY
DXMV.map_key;
╔═════════╦═══════════╗
║ map_key ║ map_value ║
╠═════════╬═══════════╣
║ 0 ║ NL ║
║ 1 ║ SCH_S ║
║ 2 ║ SCH_M ║
║ 3 ║ S ║
║ 4 ║ U ║
║ 5 ║ X ║
║ 6 ║ IS ║
║ 7 ║ IU ║
║ 8 ║ IX ║
║ 9 ║ SIU ║
║ 10 ║ SIX ║
║ 11 ║ UIX ║
║ 12 ║ BU ║
║ 13 ║ RS_S ║
║ 14 ║ RS_U ║
║ 15 ║ RI_NL ║
║ 16 ║ RI_S ║
║ 17 ║ RI_U ║
║ 18 ║ RI_X ║
║ 19 ║ RX_S ║
║ 20 ║ RX_U ║
║ 21 ║ LAST_MODE ║
╚═════════╩═══════════╝
The memory structure accessed via the DMV (using sqlmin!CMapValuesTable
) is stored starting at the address sqlmin!XeSqlPkg::g_lock_mode
. Each 16-byte entry in the structure contains the map_key
and a pointer to the string returned as map_value
by the streaming TVF.
The strings are stored exactly as shown in the table above (though not in that order). It seems to be an error that entry 21 has a map_value
of "LAST_MODE" instead of the expected "RX_X".
add a comment |
The single row insert acquires an X
(exclusive) lock on the new row.
The SELECT
attempts to acquire a range-shared, key shared (RangeS-S
) lock.
This request is reported by the lock_acquired
Extended Event as mode = RS_S
.
It is reported by the Profiler event class Lock:Acquired
as mode 13 (LCK_M_RS_S
).
The requested mode is combined with the existing exclusive lock mode in Lock::CalculateGrantMode
in sqlmin.dll
. There is no combined mode of range-shared, key exclusive (RangeS-X
) so the outcome of the calculation is range-exclusive, key exclusive (RangeX-X
), which happens to be mode 15.
The grant mode calculation above is performed just before the extended event is generated by lck_ProduceExtendedEvent<XeSqlPkg::lock_acquired>
. Nevertheless, both Profiler and Extended Events log the requested RangeS-S
mode, not the resulting lock mode RangeX-X
. This is counter to the limited documentation, which says:
Mode | int | Resulting mode after the lock was acquired.
The mode column of the extended event has no documentation at all, and the description in the meta data is blank. Perhaps Microsoft themselves weren't even sure of the behaviour.
I have often thought it would be more useful if lock events reported both the requested and resulting modes, but that is not what we have. The current arrangement makes it pretty much impossible to track and match up lock acquisition and release.
There might be a good reason for reporting locks this way. If it doesn't meet your needs, you could open a support case with Microsoft, or create an Azure Feedback item.
LAST_MODE
The mysterious LAST_MODE
is something Erik Darling has remarked on before. It is the highest map_key
value in the list of lock modes exposed by sys.dm_xe_map_values
:
SELECT
DXMV.map_key,
DXMV.map_value
FROM sys.dm_xe_map_values AS DXMV
WHERE
DXMV.[name] = N'lock_mode'
ORDER BY
DXMV.map_key;
╔═════════╦═══════════╗
║ map_key ║ map_value ║
╠═════════╬═══════════╣
║ 0 ║ NL ║
║ 1 ║ SCH_S ║
║ 2 ║ SCH_M ║
║ 3 ║ S ║
║ 4 ║ U ║
║ 5 ║ X ║
║ 6 ║ IS ║
║ 7 ║ IU ║
║ 8 ║ IX ║
║ 9 ║ SIU ║
║ 10 ║ SIX ║
║ 11 ║ UIX ║
║ 12 ║ BU ║
║ 13 ║ RS_S ║
║ 14 ║ RS_U ║
║ 15 ║ RI_NL ║
║ 16 ║ RI_S ║
║ 17 ║ RI_U ║
║ 18 ║ RI_X ║
║ 19 ║ RX_S ║
║ 20 ║ RX_U ║
║ 21 ║ LAST_MODE ║
╚═════════╩═══════════╝
The memory structure accessed via the DMV (using sqlmin!CMapValuesTable
) is stored starting at the address sqlmin!XeSqlPkg::g_lock_mode
. Each 16-byte entry in the structure contains the map_key
and a pointer to the string returned as map_value
by the streaming TVF.
The strings are stored exactly as shown in the table above (though not in that order). It seems to be an error that entry 21 has a map_value
of "LAST_MODE" instead of the expected "RX_X".
The single row insert acquires an X
(exclusive) lock on the new row.
The SELECT
attempts to acquire a range-shared, key shared (RangeS-S
) lock.
This request is reported by the lock_acquired
Extended Event as mode = RS_S
.
It is reported by the Profiler event class Lock:Acquired
as mode 13 (LCK_M_RS_S
).
The requested mode is combined with the existing exclusive lock mode in Lock::CalculateGrantMode
in sqlmin.dll
. There is no combined mode of range-shared, key exclusive (RangeS-X
) so the outcome of the calculation is range-exclusive, key exclusive (RangeX-X
), which happens to be mode 15.
The grant mode calculation above is performed just before the extended event is generated by lck_ProduceExtendedEvent<XeSqlPkg::lock_acquired>
. Nevertheless, both Profiler and Extended Events log the requested RangeS-S
mode, not the resulting lock mode RangeX-X
. This is counter to the limited documentation, which says:
Mode | int | Resulting mode after the lock was acquired.
The mode column of the extended event has no documentation at all, and the description in the meta data is blank. Perhaps Microsoft themselves weren't even sure of the behaviour.
I have often thought it would be more useful if lock events reported both the requested and resulting modes, but that is not what we have. The current arrangement makes it pretty much impossible to track and match up lock acquisition and release.
There might be a good reason for reporting locks this way. If it doesn't meet your needs, you could open a support case with Microsoft, or create an Azure Feedback item.
LAST_MODE
The mysterious LAST_MODE
is something Erik Darling has remarked on before. It is the highest map_key
value in the list of lock modes exposed by sys.dm_xe_map_values
:
SELECT
DXMV.map_key,
DXMV.map_value
FROM sys.dm_xe_map_values AS DXMV
WHERE
DXMV.[name] = N'lock_mode'
ORDER BY
DXMV.map_key;
╔═════════╦═══════════╗
║ map_key ║ map_value ║
╠═════════╬═══════════╣
║ 0 ║ NL ║
║ 1 ║ SCH_S ║
║ 2 ║ SCH_M ║
║ 3 ║ S ║
║ 4 ║ U ║
║ 5 ║ X ║
║ 6 ║ IS ║
║ 7 ║ IU ║
║ 8 ║ IX ║
║ 9 ║ SIU ║
║ 10 ║ SIX ║
║ 11 ║ UIX ║
║ 12 ║ BU ║
║ 13 ║ RS_S ║
║ 14 ║ RS_U ║
║ 15 ║ RI_NL ║
║ 16 ║ RI_S ║
║ 17 ║ RI_U ║
║ 18 ║ RI_X ║
║ 19 ║ RX_S ║
║ 20 ║ RX_U ║
║ 21 ║ LAST_MODE ║
╚═════════╩═══════════╝
The memory structure accessed via the DMV (using sqlmin!CMapValuesTable
) is stored starting at the address sqlmin!XeSqlPkg::g_lock_mode
. Each 16-byte entry in the structure contains the map_key
and a pointer to the string returned as map_value
by the streaming TVF.
The strings are stored exactly as shown in the table above (though not in that order). It seems to be an error that entry 21 has a map_value
of "LAST_MODE" instead of the expected "RX_X".
edited Jul 31 at 11:10
answered Jul 30 at 1:11
Paul White♦Paul White
58.3k16 gold badges307 silver badges481 bronze badges
58.3k16 gold badges307 silver badges481 bronze badges
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%2f244054%2fwhy-does-this-rx-x-lock-not-appear-in-extended-events%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