8
Such a scenario: a certain amount of data to be inserted in a table,when reaches a threshold no longer insert, I simulated this scenario, in the case of multi-threaded (eg asp.net) appeared concurrent problems.
My question is how to solve of the concurrent problem, do not use the lock case
void Main()
{
Enumerable.Range(0,20).ToList().ForEach(i=>{
MockMulit();
});
}
//Start a certain number of threads for concurrent simulation
void MockMulit()
{
int threadCount=100;
ClearData();//delete all data for test
var tasks=new List<Task>(threadCount);
Enumerable.Range(1,threadCount).ToList().ForEach(i=>{
var j=i;
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>T3(string.Format("Thread{0}-{1}",Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId,j))));
});
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
CountData().Dump();//show that the result
}
method one - concurrency very serious
void T1(string name)
{
using(var conn=GetOpendConn())
{
var count=conn.Query<int>(@"select count(*) from dbo.Down").Single();
if(count<20)
{
conn.Execute(@"insert into dbo.Down (UserName) values (@UserName)",new{UserName=name});
}
}
}
method two - put the sql together can reduce concurrent, but still exist
void T2(string name)
{
using(var conn=GetOpendConn())
{
conn.Execute(@"
if((select count(*) from dbo.Down)<20)
begin
--WAITFOR DELAY '00:00:00.100';
insert into dbo.Down (UserName) values (@UserName)
end",new{UserName=name});
}
}
method three - with lock destroy the concurrent,but i don't think it is a best solution
private static readonly object countLock=new object();
void T3(string name)
{
lock(cou