<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic concurrency lock condition error when writing multiple records to an audit log table simultaneously. in Data Engineering</title>
    <link>https://community.fabric.microsoft.com/t5/Data-Engineering/concurrency-lock-condition-error-when-writing-multiple-records/m-p/4135025#M3920</link>
    <description>&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Issue&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Facing lock condition errors when writing multiple records to an audit log table simultaneously.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Setup&lt;/STRONG&gt;:&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;One master pipeline invoking multiple child pipelines.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Audit log notebook placed in both master and child pipelines.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;During a child pipeline failure, the notebook activity updates the audit log table in parallel for both child and master pipeline rows.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Problem&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Despite updates being made as separate rows, lock conditions occur, causing pipeline errors.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Attempts to Resolve&lt;/STRONG&gt;:&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Applied partition by.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Used update statements.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;These methods did not resolve the issue in Fabric.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;H3&gt;Framed Question:&lt;/H3&gt;&lt;P&gt;What are some effective strategies or best practices to avoid lock condition errors when writing multiple records to an audit log table simultaneously in a pipeline setup, especially in a Fabric environment?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:34:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-09-05T08:34:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>concurrency lock condition error when writing multiple records to an audit log table simultaneously.</title>
      <link>https://community.fabric.microsoft.com/t5/Data-Engineering/concurrency-lock-condition-error-when-writing-multiple-records/m-p/4135025#M3920</link>
      <description>&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Issue&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Facing lock condition errors when writing multiple records to an audit log table simultaneously.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Setup&lt;/STRONG&gt;:&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;One master pipeline invoking multiple child pipelines.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Audit log notebook placed in both master and child pipelines.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;During a child pipeline failure, the notebook activity updates the audit log table in parallel for both child and master pipeline rows.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Problem&lt;/STRONG&gt;: Despite updates being made as separate rows, lock conditions occur, causing pipeline errors.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Attempts to Resolve&lt;/STRONG&gt;:&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Applied partition by.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Used update statements.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;These methods did not resolve the issue in Fabric.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;H3&gt;Framed Question:&lt;/H3&gt;&lt;P&gt;What are some effective strategies or best practices to avoid lock condition errors when writing multiple records to an audit log table simultaneously in a pipeline setup, especially in a Fabric environment?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2024 08:34:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.fabric.microsoft.com/t5/Data-Engineering/concurrency-lock-condition-error-when-writing-multiple-records/m-p/4135025#M3920</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-09-05T08:34:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: concurrency lock condition error when writing multiple records to an audit log table simultaneously.</title>
      <link>https://community.fabric.microsoft.com/t5/Data-Engineering/concurrency-lock-condition-error-when-writing-multiple-records/m-p/4135075#M3921</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;Anonymous&lt;/LI-USER&gt;&amp;nbsp;are you using the Warehouse service? &amp;nbsp;It uses snapshot isolation and has only table level locking. Concurrent UPDATE statements will likely cause issues. I explain further here:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.serverlesssql.com/transaction-isolation-in-fabric-warehouses/" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.serverlesssql.com/transaction-isolation-in-fabric-warehouses/&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2024 09:10:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.fabric.microsoft.com/t5/Data-Engineering/concurrency-lock-condition-error-when-writing-multiple-records/m-p/4135075#M3921</guid>
      <dc:creator>AndyDDC</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-09-05T09:10:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: concurrency lock condition error when writing multiple records to an audit log table simultaneously.</title>
      <link>https://community.fabric.microsoft.com/t5/Data-Engineering/concurrency-lock-condition-error-when-writing-multiple-records/m-p/4161586#M4169</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;Anonymous&lt;/LI-USER&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Have you resolved this issue? If any of the answers provided were helpful, please consider accepting them as a solution. If you have found other solutions, we would greatly appreciate it if you could share them with us.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Best Regards,&lt;BR /&gt;Jing&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 06:59:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.fabric.microsoft.com/t5/Data-Engineering/concurrency-lock-condition-error-when-writing-multiple-records/m-p/4161586#M4169</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-09-20T06:59:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

