Deadlocks: Determining the victim with little info from Profiler...

  • Hello all -

    So, I have been hunting down and resolving deadlock issues over the past week, but have come across one that is not giving me much info in the way of the PROC or Ad-Hoc query involved. See image below

    As you can see - the 'Statement:' is blank, and even the line reference is pretty vague. I've also tried reading the info from the SQL Log by using Trace Flags -T1222 and -T3605, but no luck there either. The information gives me little to no detail as to what object is the actual victim. I know that there are 2 PROCs involved, but which is the actual deadlock victim is not readily apparent, and in this particular case - the best thing I can do is look at the index given (because it is in nearly every deadlock, but my remedy for that is to simply rebuild it, and not much more - no ad-hoc query listed to add a new index by, so nothing else that I know to do).

    Any insight would be much appreciated.

  • Please save off the deadlock graph and attach it to this thread.

    There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
    --Plato

  • Deadlock Graph...

  • No, not the picture again. The XML. That picture is rendered off an XML document which contains important troubleshooting information.

    Right click the row in Profiler and click Extract Event Data..., save the file and attach it to this thread.

    There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
    --Plato

  • Sorry about that - here ya go...

  • Open the xdl in Notepad to see the two statements involved.

    There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
    --Plato

  • OK...I had seen this ad-hoc query in the mix of things in past deadlocks, but couldn't tell that it was the victim until now.

    Thank you so very much for pointing this out opc.three! Now - I need to figure out if there is some way for me to get this to stop happening, because there is nothing I can do to improve this query as it is today (ran it through DTA with no improvements to be made).

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply