mysql可重复读避免了幻读_mysql的可重复读REPEATABLE READ隔离级别和幻读

1)mvcc多版本控制提高读写qps

2) REPEATBLE READ 级别并不能完全避免幻读，需要加next key locks，可以使显示锁(select * where * for update   or lock in share mode)

一些文章写到InnoDB的可重复读避免了“幻读”(phantom read)，这个说法并不准确。

做个试验：(以下所有试验要注意存储引擎和隔离级别)

mysql>show create table t_bitfly/G; CREATE TABLE `t_bitfly` ( `id` bigint(20) NOT NULL default '0', `value` varchar(32) default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=gbk

mysql>select @@global.tx_isolation, @@tx_isolation; +-----------------------+-----------------+ | @@global.tx_isolation | @@tx_isolation  | +-----------------------+-----------------+ | REPEATABLE-READ       | REPEATABLE-READ | +-----------------------+-----------------+

试验4-1：

tSessionA                                                     Session B | | START TRANSACTION;                           START TRANSACTION; | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | empty set |                                INSERT INTO t_bitfly VALUES (1, 'a'); |                              | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | empty set |                                                                      COMMIT; | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | empty set | | INSERT INTO t_bitfly VALUES (1, 'a'); | ERROR 1062 (23000): | Duplicate entry '1' for key 1 v (shit,刚刚明明告诉我没有这条记录的)

如此就出现了幻读，以为表里没有数据，其实数据已经存在了，傻乎乎的提交后，才发现数据冲突了。

试验4-2：

tSessionA               Session B | | START TRANSACTION;           START TRANSACTION; | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +------+-------+ | | id   | value | | +------+-------+ | |    1 |a     | | +------+-------+ |                                       INSERT INTO t_bitfly VALUES (2, 'b'); |                             | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +------+-------+ | | id   | value | | +------+-------+ | |    1 |a     | | +------+-------+ |                               COMMIT; | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +------+-------+ | | id   | value | | +------+-------+ | |    1 |a     | | +------+-------+ | | UPDATE t_bitfly SET value='z'; | Rows matched: 2  Changed:2  Warnings: 0 | (怎么多出来一行) | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +------+-------+ | | id   | value | | +------+-------+ | |    1 |z     | | |    2 |z     | | +------+-------+ | v

本事务中第一次读取出一行，做了一次更新后，另一个事务里提交的数据就出现了。也可以看做是一种幻读。

------

那么，InnoDB指出的可以避免幻读是怎么回事呢？

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-record-level-locks.html

By default, InnoDB operatesin REPEATABLE READ transaction isolation level and with the innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlogsystem variable disabled. In this case, InnoDB uses next-key locks for searchesand index scans, which prevents phantom rows (see Section 13.6.8.5, “Avoidingthe Phantom Problem Using Next-Key Locking”).

准备的理解是，当隔离级别是可重复读，且禁用innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog的情况下，在搜索和扫描index的时候使用的next-keylocks可以避免幻读。

关键点在于，是InnoDB默认对一个普通的查询也会加next-key locks，还是说需要应用自己来加锁呢？如果单看这一句，可能会以为InnoDB对普通的查询也加了锁，如果是，那和序列化(SERIALIZABLE)的区别又在哪里呢？

MySQL manual里还有一段：

13.2.8.5. Avoiding the PhantomProblem Using Next-Key Locking (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-next-key-locking.html)

Toprevent phantoms, InnoDB usesan algorithm called next-key locking that combinesindex-row locking with gap locking.

Youcan use next-key locking to implement a uniqueness check in your application:If you read your data in share mode and do not see a duplicate for a row youare going to insert, then you can safely insert your row and know that thenext-key lock set on the successor of your row during the read prevents anyonemeanwhile inserting a duplicate for your row. Thus, the next-key lockingenables you to “lock” the nonexistence of something in your table.

我的理解是说，InnoDB提供了next-key locks，但需要应用程序自己去加锁。manual里提供一个例子：

SELECT * FROM child WHERE id> 100 FOR UPDATE;

这样，InnoDB会给id大于100的行(假如child表里有一行id为102)，以及100-102，102+的gap都加上锁。

可以使用showinnodb status来查看是否给表加上了锁。

再看一个实验，要注意，表t_bitfly里的id为主键字段。

实验4-3：

t SessionA             Session B | | START TRANSACTION;                START TRANSACTION; | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly | WHERE id<=1 | FOR UPDATE; | +------+-------+ | | id   | value | | +------+-------+ | |    1 |a     | | +------+-------+ |                                      INSERT INTO t_bitfly   VALUES (2, 'b'); |                            Query OK, 1 row affected | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +------+-------+ | | id   | value | | +------+-------+ | |    1 |a     | | +------+-------+ |                              INSERT INTO t_bitfly |                              VALUES (0, '0'); |                                  (waiting for lock ... |                               then timeout) |                                   ERROR 1205 (HY000): |                                  Lock wait timeout exceeded; |                                   try restarting transaction | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +------+-------+ | | id   | value | | +------+-------+ | |    1 |a     | | +------+-------+ |                           COMMIT; | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +------+-------+ | | id   | value | | +------+-------+ | |    1 |a     | | +------+-------+ v

可以看到，用id<=1加的锁，只锁住了id<=1的范围，可以成功添加id为2的记录，添加id为0的记录时就会等待锁的释放。

MySQL manual里对可重复读里的锁的详细解释：

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/set-transaction.html#isolevel_repeatable-read

Forlocking reads (SELECT with FORUPDATE or LOCK IN SHARE MODE),UPDATE, and DELETE statements, lockingdepends on whether the statement uses a unique index with a unique searchcondition, or a range-type search condition. For a unique index with a uniquesearch condition, InnoDB locksonly the index record found, not the gap before it. For other searchconditions, InnoDB locksthe index range scanned, using gap locks or next-key (gap plus index-record)locks to block insertions by other sessions into the gaps covered by the range.

------

一致性读和提交读，先看实验，

实验4-4：

tSessionA              Session B | | STARTTRANSACTION;             START TRANSACTION; | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +----+-------+ | | id | value | | +----+-------+ | |  1 |a     | | +----+-------+ |                              INSERT INTO t_bitfly   VALUES (2, 'b'); |                               |                              COMMIT; | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +----+-------+ | | id | value | | +----+-------+ | |  1 |a     | | +----+-------+ | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly LOCK IN SHARE MODE; | +----+-------+ | | id | value | | +----+-------+ | |  1 |a     | | |  2 |b     | | +----+-------+ | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly FOR UPDATE; | +----+-------+ | | id | value | | +----+-------+ | |  1 |a     | | |  2 |b     | | +----+-------+ | | SELECT * FROM t_bitfly; | +----+-------+ | | id | value | | +----+-------+ | |  1 |a     | | +----+-------+ v

如果使用普通的读，会得到一致性的结果，如果使用了加锁的读，就会读到“最新的”“提交”读的结果。

本身，可重复读和提交读是矛盾的。在同一个事务里，如果保证了可重复读，就会看不到其他事务的提交，违背了提交读；如果保证了提交读，就会导致前后两次读到的结果不一致，违背了可重复读。

可以这么讲，InnoDB提供了这样的机制，在默认的可重复读的隔离级别里，可以使用加锁读去查询最新的数据。

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/innodb-consistent-read.html

Ifyou want to see the “freshest” state of the database, you should use either theREAD COMMITTED isolation level or a locking read: SELECT * FROM t_bitfly LOCK IN SHARE MODE;

------

结论：MySQLInnoDB的可重复读并不保证避免幻读，需要应用使用加锁读来保证。而这个加锁度使用到的机制就是next-keylocks。