MySQL Difference between BEGIN and START TRANSACTION

auto-commitMySQLmysql-5.6transaction

I'm using RDS Aurora (MySQL 5.6)

By default Auto Commit flag is enabled.
I have a transaction as follows

BEGIN;
INSERT INTO .....;// STATEMENT 1
INSERT INTO ......;//STATEMENT 2
COMMIT;

I'm expecting both the Inserts to be commited only when COMMIT is executed.
But Statement 1 is Commiting as soon as it got executed.

So I wanted to know What does BEGIN do here ??

I was assuming that BEGIN does the task of disabling Auto Commit , Can someone also explain the difference between BEGIN and START TRANSACTION as well.

Best Answer

The manual has this to say:

BEGIN and BEGIN WORK are supported as aliases of START TRANSACTION for initiating a transaction. START TRANSACTION is standard SQL syntax, is the recommended way to start an ad-hoc transaction, and permits modifiers that BEGIN does not.

The BEGIN statement differs from the use of the BEGIN keyword that starts a BEGIN ... END compound statement. The latter does not begin a transaction. See Section 13.6.1, “BEGIN ... END Compound Statement”.

Related Solutions

Postgresql – Postgres requires commit or rollback after exception

The problem I have with your example is that you're talking about JDBC behaviour, but also using explicit "start transaction" etc commands, which seems a bit of a clash, since I'd expect you'd use JDBC's auto-commit mode to manage transactions.

If you are in auto-commit mode, then the two inserts will each be in their own transaction, and the throw of a SQLException for the first one will not affect the second.

If you are not in auto-commit mode, then an implicit "start transaction" is generated before the first insert, and the second insert cannot be processed until the transaction is rolled back. This behaviour is quite different from if you were executing the script with psql.

(JDBC does not specify whether drivers/connections should default to auto-commit on or off, you should always explicitly set it)

Postgresql treats any error processing a statement as immediately aborting the transaction-- essentially like the XACT_ABORT mode in SQL Server. The intent being that if you submit a sequence of commands as a transaction, each one is dependent on the previous ones, so the failure of any one invalidates all the subsequent ones.

If this isn't the behaviour you want inside a transaction, you need to surround the potentially-aborting updates with creating a savepoint, and rolling back to that savepoint in case of an error.

Beware of looking at very old discussions of behaviour (bugs over ten years old definitely count), as at some point in Postgresql's history, there was a session variable called autocommit, and the behaviour could have been quite different. That variable is gone now, replaced (as I understand it) with the concepts of the database or the JDBC driver automatically wrapping commands inside transactions (so in fact there is not really any such thing as non-transactional interaction with postgresql).

Here is what happens when you execute the script you suggest with psql:

steve@steve@[local] =# start transaction;
START TRANSACTION
steve@steve@[local] *=# create table test(id int primary key);
NOTICE:  CREATE TABLE / PRIMARY KEY will create implicit index "test_pkey" for table "test"
CREATE TABLE
steve@steve@[local] *=# insert into test values (1);
INSERT 0 1
steve@steve@[local] *=# commit;
COMMIT
steve@steve@[local] =# 
steve@steve@[local] =# -- Following statement throws a SQLException(duplicate key) in
steve@steve@[local] =# -- PG, SS and ORacle
steve@steve@[local] =# insert into test values (1);
ERROR:  duplicate key value violates unique constraint "test_pkey"
DETAIL:  Key (id)=(1) already exists.
steve@steve@[local] =# 
steve@steve@[local] =# -- Following statement behaves differently for different DBMS:
steve@steve@[local] =# -- SS and OR: No error...statement runs fine
steve@steve@[local] =# -- PG: Another SQLException thrown...must rollback or commit
steve@steve@[local] =# insert into test values (99);
INSERT 0 1

In order to get the same behaviour as you wrote in the script, you'd have to turn off auto-commit before doing the insert- that stops the JDBC driver from issuing an implicit "start transaction" before it executes the next statement. If you put that implicitly-generated transaction into the psql script, it produces the error you describe:

steve@steve@[local] =# start transaction; -- generated by JDBC driver
START TRANSACTION
steve@steve@[local] *=# -- Following statement throws a SQLException(duplicate key) in
steve@steve@[local] *=# -- PG, SS and ORacle
steve@steve@[local] *=# insert into test values (1);
ERROR:  duplicate key value violates unique constraint "test_pkey"
DETAIL:  Key (id)=(1) already exists.
steve@steve@[local] !=# 
steve@steve@[local] !=# -- Following statement behaves differently for different DBMS:
steve@steve@[local] !=# -- SS and OR: No error...statement runs fine
steve@steve@[local] !=# -- PG: Another SQLException thrown...must rollback or commit
steve@steve@[local] !=# insert into test values (99);
ERROR:  current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of transaction block

As an illustration of why this behaviour exists, consider what happens if I run the first transaction again. The intent is "create the table and populate it with a single row":

steve@steve@[local] =# start transaction;
START TRANSACTION
steve@steve@[local] *=# create table test(id int primary key);
ERROR:  relation "test" already exists
steve@steve@[local] !=# insert into test values (1);
ERROR:  current transaction is aborted, commands ignored until end of transaction block
steve@steve@[local] !=# commit;
ROLLBACK

So as soon as a problem is detected ("test" already exists), the remaining data manipulation isn't appropriate (the row already existed too, anyway)

Sql-server – Transaction level difference between using a large IN filter VS. “BEGIN TRAN/COMMIT”

From a logging point of view 1 and 2 will be about the same as in both cases you are doing all the deletes within a single transaction. There will be lots of locking and probably blocking while the delete is being run. #3 is a single transaction per batch, so users won't be impacted very much and you'll have lots of small transactions in the transaction log instead of one large one. #2 and #3 should take about the same amount of time to run. #1 should take less time than #2 and #3 because it's just one command, however the run time will probably still cause problems.

I'd probably want to do something like this. This will minimize the locking and blocking that needs to happen by only dealing with 1000 rows at a time.

SELECT NULL
WHILE @@ROWCOUNT <> 0
BEGIN
  DELETE TOP (1000) FROM dbo.x
  WHERE ID IN ( /* if possible use "BETWEEN 1 and 100000" instead*/
  1
  ,2
  ,3
  ,4
  ...
  ,100000
  )
END

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Postgresql – Postgres requires commit or rollback after exception

Sql-server – Transaction level difference between using a large IN filter VS. “BEGIN TRAN/COMMIT”

Related Question