db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Synge (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-47) Some possible improvements to IN optimization
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:42:23 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-47?page=comments#action_12460327 ] 
            
James Synge commented on DERBY-47:
----------------------------------

I've been thinking more about the suggestion of using a table constructor.
I was concerned about several issues:

1) When I tried it previously I got this error:

         ERROR 42Y10: A table constructor that is not in an INSERT
         statement has all ? parameters in one of its columns.  For
         each column, at least one of the rows must have a non-parameter.

    Working around this will require figuring out the type of the parameters,
    and creating a dummy value to include in the table, with extra code to
    remove it.

2) Re-writing the query by adding the table constructor to the fromList
     of the SelectNode that includes the IN list predicate potentially
     changes the semantics of the query (for example, imagine the case
     where the IN list is OR'd with other predicates).  This is why I've been
     sticking with a sub-query (which my performance experiments indicated
     can perform well).

I tried the table constructor again this morning, coming up with a query
re-write that combines the suggested table constructor with an IN sub-query.
For example, we would transform:

SELECT * FROM tableA 
WHERE columnB IN (constC, ?, ?, constD)

into:

SELECT * FROM tableA
WHERE columnB IN (
        SELECT v FROM TABLE(
                VALUES (dummyValue, 0), (constC, 1), (?, 1), (?, 1), (constD, 1)) AS X(v,
k) WHERE k=1)

The sub-query is built up as a tree (really a list) of UNIONs, union-ing together each
row in the VALUES clause.

Unfortunately the performance of this is poor, with a table scan of tableA being performed,
rather than using the index on columnB.  I'm investigating why this isn't transformed
into a nested loop join, with the UNION on the outside.


> Some possible improvements to IN optimization
> ---------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-47
>                 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-47
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: SQL
>    Affects Versions: 10.0.2.0
>         Environment: all
>            Reporter: Sunitha Kambhampati
>         Attachments: derby-47-performance-data.txt, derby-47-performance-data.txt, Derby47PerformanceTest.java,
Derby47PerformanceTest.java, InListOperatorNode.java, QueryPlanUniqueIndexAndWordIndexOneTerm.txt,
QueryPlanUniqueIndexAndWordIndexTwoTerms.txt, QueryPlanUniqueIndexOnlyOneTerm.txt, QueryPlanUniqueIndexOnlyTwoTerms.txt
>
>
> Consider a simple case of  - 
> A table tbl has 10000 rows, there is a primary key index on i1
> and the query in question is 
>  select * from tbl where i1 in (-1,100000)
> derby does a table scan of the entire table even though the "IN" list has only two values
and the comparison is on a field that has an index.
> Briefly looking at the code, it seems like we insert a between and use the IN list to
get the start and stop values for the scan. Thus the range of the values in the "IN" list
here plays an important role. 
> Thus if the query was changed to select * from tbl where i1 in (-1, 1), an index scan
would be chosen.
> It would be nice if we could do something clever in this case where there is clearly
an index on the field and the number of values in the IN list is known. Maybe use the rowcount
estimate and the IN list size to do some optimizations.  
> - consider the length of the "IN" list to do searches on the table.  ie use the IN list
values to do index key searches on the table,
> -or try to convert it to a join. Use the "IN" list values to create a temporary table
and do a join. It is most likely that the optimizer will choose the table with "IN" list here
as the outer table in the join and thus will do key searches on the larger table. 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> some query plans that I logged using derby.language.logQueryPlan=true for some similar
queries:
> Table has ascending values from 0 - 9999 for i1. primary key index on i1.
> GMT Thread[UT0,5,main] (XID = 19941), (SESSIONID = 0), select * from scanfixed where
i1 in (-1,9999,9998,9997,9996,9995,9994,9993,9992,9991,9990) ******* Project-Restrict ResultSet
(2):
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 10000
> Rows filtered = 9990
> restriction = true
> projection = false
> 	constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	open time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	next time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	close time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	projection time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	optimizer estimated row count:          750.38
> 	optimizer estimated cost:         8579.46
> Source result set:
> 	Table Scan ResultSet for SCANFIXED at read committed isolation level using instantaneous
share row locking chosen by the optimizer
> 	Number of opens = 1
> 	Rows seen = 10000
> 	Rows filtered = 0
> 	Fetch Size = 16
> 		constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> 		open time (milliseconds) = 0
> 		next time (milliseconds) = 0
> 		close time (milliseconds) = 0
> 		next time in milliseconds/row = 0
> 	scan information: 
> 		Bit set of columns fetched=All
> 		Number of columns fetched=9
> 		Number of pages visited=417
> 		Number of rows qualified=10000
> 		Number of rows visited=10000
> 		Scan type=heap
> 		start position: 
> null		stop position: 
> null		qualifiers:
> Column[0][0] Id: 0
> Operator: <=
> Ordered nulls: false
> Unknown return value: false
> Negate comparison result: false
> Column[0][1] Id: 0
> Operator: <
> Ordered nulls: false
> Unknown return value: true
> Negate comparison result: true
> 		optimizer estimated row count:          750.38
> 		optimizer estimated cost:         8579.46
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> l
> 2004-10-14 18:59:47.577 GMT Thread[UT0,5,main] (XID = 19216), (SESSIONID = 0), select
* from scanfixed where i1 in (9999,9998,9997,9996,9995,9994,9993,9992,9991,9990) ******* Project-Restrict
ResultSet (3):
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 10
> Rows filtered = 0
> restriction = true
> projection = true
> 	constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	open time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	next time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	close time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	projection time (milliseconds) = 0
> 	optimizer estimated row count:            4.80
> 	optimizer estimated cost:           39.53
> Source result set:
> 	Index Row to Base Row ResultSet for SCANFIXED:
> 	Number of opens = 1
> 	Rows seen = 10
> 	Columns accessed from heap = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}
> 		constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> 		open time (milliseconds) = 0
> 		next time (milliseconds) = 0
> 		close time (milliseconds) = 0
> 		optimizer estimated row count:            4.80
> 		optimizer estimated cost:           39.53
> 		Index Scan ResultSet for SCANFIXED using index SCANFIXEDX at read committed isolation
level using instantaneous share row locking chosen by the optimizer
> 		Number of opens = 1
> 		Rows seen = 10
> 		Rows filtered = 0
> 		Fetch Size = 16
> 			constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> 			open time (milliseconds) = 0
> 			next time (milliseconds) = 0
> 			close time (milliseconds) = 0
> 			next time in milliseconds/row = 0
> 		scan information: 
> 			Bit set of columns fetched=All
> 			Number of columns fetched=2
> 			Number of deleted rows visited=0
> 			Number of pages visited=2
> 			Number of rows qualified=10
> 			Number of rows visited=10
> 			Scan type=btree
> 			Tree height=2
> 			start position: 
> 	>= on first 1 column(s).
> 	Ordered null semantics on the following columns: 
> 			stop position: 
> 	> on first 1 column(s).
> 	Ordered null semantics on the following columns: 
> 			qualifiers:
> None
> 			optimizer estimated row count:            4.80
> 			optimizer estimated cost:           39.53

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message