Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <166629696.1237394030653.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Knut Anders Hatlen (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Resolved: (DERBY-2991) Index split deadlock
In-Reply-To: <16734720.1186114252905.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2991?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Knut Anders Hatlen resolved DERBY-2991.
---------------------------------------

    Resolution: Fixed

Yes, I think we can mark this issue as resolved now and address remaining cleanup, and bugs if they turn up, in separate issues.

> Index split deadlock
> --------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-2991
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2991
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Store
>    Affects Versions: 10.2.2.0, 10.3.1.4
>         Environment: Windows XP, Java 6
>            Reporter: Bogdan Calmac
>            Assignee: Knut Anders Hatlen
>             Fix For: 10.5.0.0
>
>         Attachments: d2991-2a.diff, d2991-2a.stat, d2991-2b.diff, d2991-2b.stat, d2991-preview-1a.diff, d2991-preview-1a.stat, d2991-preview-1b.diff, d2991-preview-1b.stat, d2991-preview-1c.diff, d2991-preview-1c.stat, d2991-preview-1d.diff, d2991-preview-1d.stat, d2991-preview-1e.diff, derby.log, InsertSelectDeadlock.java, perftest.diff, Repro2991.java, stacktraces_during_deadlock.txt, test-1.diff, test-2.diff, test-3.diff, test-4.diff
>
>
> After doing dome research on the mailing list, it appears that the index split deadlock is a known behaviour, so I will start by describing the theoretical problem first and then follow with the details of my test case.
> If you have concurrent select and insert transactions on the same table, the observed locking behaviour is as follows:
>  - the select transaction acquires an S lock on the root block of the index and then waits for an S lock on some uncommitted row of the insert transaction
>  - the insert transaction acquires X locks on the inserted records and if it needs to do an index split creates a sub-transaction that tries to acquire an X lock on the root block of the index
> In summary: INDEX LOCK followed by ROW LOCK + ROW LOCK followed by INDEX LOCK = deadlock
> In the case of my project this is an important issue (lack of concurrency after being forced to use table level locking) and I would like to contribute to the project and fix this issue (if possible). I was wondering if someone that knows the code can give me a few pointers on the implications of this issue:
>  - Is this a limitation of the top-down algorithm used?
>  - Would fixing it require to use a bottom up algorithm for better concurrency (which is certainly non trivial)?
>  - Trying to break the circular locking above, I would first question why does the select transaction need to acquire (and hold) a lock on the root block of the index. Would it be possible to ensure the consistency of the select without locking the index?
> -----
> The attached test (InsertSelectDeadlock.java) tries to simulate a typical data collection application, it consists of: 
>  - an insert thread that inserts records in batch 
>  - a select thread that 'processes' the records inserted by the other thread: 'select * from table where id > ?' 
> The derby log provides detail about the deadlock trace and stacktraces_during_deadlock.txt shows that the inser thread is doing an index split.
> The test was run on 10.2.2.0 and 10.3.1.4 with identical behaviour.
> Thanks,
> Bogdan Calmac.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.