Sql – What are the problems of using transactions in a database

deadlocksqltransactions

From this post. One obvious problem is scalability/performance. What are the other problems that transactions use will provoke?

Could you say there are two sets of problems, one for long running transactions and one for short running ones? If yes, how would you define them?

EDIT: Deadlock is another problem, but data inconsistency might be worse, depending on the application domain. Assuming a transaction-worthy domain (banking, to use the canonical example), deadlock possibility is more like a cost to pay for ensuring data consistency, rather than a problem with transactions use, or you would disagree? If so, what other solutions would you use to ensure data consistency which are deadlock free?

Best Solution

It depends a lot on the transactional implementation inside your database and may also depend on the transaction isolation level you use. I'm assuming "repeatable read" or higher here. Holding transactions open for a long time (even ones which haven't modified anything) forces the database to hold on to deleted or updated rows of frequently-changing tables (just in case you decide to read them) which could otherwise be thrown away.

Also, rolling back transactions can be really expensive. I know that in MySQL's InnoDB engine, rolling back a big transaction can take FAR longer than committing it (we've seen a rollback take 30 minutes).

Another problem is to do with database connection state. In a distributed, fault-tolerant application, you can't ever really know what state a database connection is in. Stateful database connections can't be maintained easily as they could fail at any moment (the application needs to remember what it was in the middle of doing it and redo it). Stateless ones can just be reconnected and have the (atomic) command re-issued without (in most cases) breaking state.