db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dag H. Wanvik (Updated) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (DERBY-4710) Upgrade from 10.2 to 10.6 fails if existing database contains a large number of tables with similar names.
Date Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:00:48 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4710?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel

Dag H. Wanvik updated DERBY-4710:

    Attachment: Derby4710.java

Uploading a test program which tries to do what's described in this issue. I have been running
it just for 10 minutes now,
but so far spent time and heap usage is flat, I'll report back tomorrow. Of course, the program
may differ significantly from what the Ray's program, but this is a starting point.
> Upgrade from 10.2 to 10.6 fails if existing database contains a large number of tables
with similar names.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: DERBY-4710
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4710
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: SQL, Store
>    Affects Versions:,,,
>         Environment: Windows XP SP3, or Windows Server 2003 R2 32-bit. Not tested on
any other platform.
>            Reporter: Ray Gala
>              Labels: derby_triage10_5_2, derby_triage10_9
>         Attachments: Derby-test.log, Derby4710.java
> Upgrade fails because of quick degradation in performance when trying to upgrade our
existing Derby DB from version 10.2.2 to the latest build 10.6. Problem is that our database
contains thousands of tables with the names starting from "SURVEY_xxxxx" where xxxxx can be
any integer from 1 to 99999. Upgrade fails on this tables to the point that one cannot access
any of them, because apparently it takes a very long time to open them.
> We staged a test in order to see how database handles creation of thousands of similarly
named tables.
> Below we will try to describe how the test was conducted.
> Process
> -        Create a new blank database in 10.6
> In a loop from 1 to 10000 { although I only managed to get to 1510 over night}
> -        Created a program that creates a table called SURVEY_X
> -         Inserts 1/2 hour interval data from the range  2006-08-03 15:00:00 to 2009-01-15
00:00:00. 40,000 records.
> And this process repeats.
> Results
> -       At the start (10:00 pm) a single cycle of create and insert was taking 2 seconds
i.e  Creation of SURVEY_1
> -       Run overnight
> -       In the morning 7:00am it had only got to 1510 table and insert creations, and
was taking  2 minutes for every new table - i.e Creation of SURVEY_1510
> If I change the program (and use it on this database with the current 1510 tables in
it) to create a table called T_SURVEY_X then it goes back to 2 seconds, although I suspect
that if I left it running and we had 1500 tables called T_SURVEY_X we would have the same
> The symptom is also present in SQLWorkbench/J where it takes 2 seconds to see table T_SURVEY_0
but 45 seconds to see SURVEY_1510 and even after it presents the data it still seems to lock
up etc. 
> So this explains why with 6000 tables that we seem to get no response at all.  As you
can see from the enclosed log performance starts really degrading after a 1000 tables.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


View raw message