Are SQL queries guaranteed to execute atomically when using UNION?

问题

I am issuing a single SQL query consisting of multiple SELECTs grouped using UNION:

SELECT *
FROM   employee 
       LEFT JOIN department 
          ON employee.DepartmentID = department.DepartmentID
UNION
SELECT *
FROM   employee
       RIGHT JOIN department
          ON employee.DepartmentID = department.DepartmentID;

Assuming I execute this query under READ_COMMITTED transaction isolation, are the two SELECT statements guaranteed to execute atomically? Or do I run the risk of data changing between individual SELECT statements? Does the SQL specification discuss this sort of thing?

CLARIFICATION: When I say "Atomic" I don't mean the "A" in ACID. I mean that I expect both department and employee tables to be read-locked until the query completes.

回答1:

Yes the statement is atomic but yes the data can change between the 2 reads.

Read Committed only guarantees that you don't read dirty data it promises nothing else about consistency of reads for that you would need a higher isolation level.

As you said that you would accept a SQL Server Example...

Connection 1

(Assumes under pessimistic read committed isolation level)

CREATE TABLE employee
(
name VARCHAR(50),
DepartmentID INT
)

CREATE TABLE department
(
DepartmentID INT
)

INSERT INTO department VALUES (1)
INSERT INTO employee VALUES ('bob',1)

declare @employee TABLE
(
name VARCHAR(50),
DepartmentID INT
)


WHILE ((SELECT COUNT(*) FROM @employee) < 2)
BEGIN
DELETE FROM  @employee

INSERT INTO @employee
SELECT employee.*
FROM   employee 
       LEFT JOIN department 
          ON employee.DepartmentID = department.DepartmentID
UNION
SELECT employee.*
FROM   employee
       RIGHT JOIN department
          ON employee.DepartmentID = department.DepartmentID

END;          

SELECT * FROM @employee

Connection 2

while (1=1)
UPDATE employee SET name = CASE WHEN name = 'bob' THEN 'bill' else 'bob' END

Now go back to connection 1

name                                               DepartmentID
-------------------------------------------------- ------------
bill                                               1
bob                                                1

(Remember to switch back to Connection 2 to kill it!)

The specific documentation covering this READ COMMITED behaviour is here

The shared lock type determines when it will be released. Row locks are released before the next row is processed. Page locks are released when the next page is read, and table locks are released when the statement finishes.

回答2:

Using UNION will remove any duplicate records that may be returned from either of the unioned queries, so not exactly atomic. Use UNION ALL if you want all records from all unioned queries. UNION ALL can be much faster that UNION also.

回答3:

EDIT: Note that my answer is incorrect but I do not want to delete it because I think it links to good questions and has good comments.

Every individual transaction is atomic.

A UNION using multiple subqueries is a single T-SQL command, a single transaction, and will be atomic.

This is, in part, a reason to avoid inefficient queries (or sprocs, for that matter) as their atomic nature can delay other transactions.

EDIT: Please see this question for more interesting information on atomicity of subqueries

Is update with nested select atomic operation?

EDIT: Apparently I am wrong.

This is a good discussion on the topic: Atomic UPSERT in SQL Server 2005 where Remus poses a good example. Sorry for doubting you, Martin....

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5598177/are-sql-queries-guaranteed-to-execute-atomically-when-using-union

标签

sql

transactions