db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mamta A. Satoor (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (DERBY-6045) in list multi-probe by primary key not chosen on tables with >256 rows
Date Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:45:13 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6045?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13599702#comment-13599702
] 

Mamta A. Satoor commented on DERBY-6045:
----------------------------------------

derbyall ran fine with no errors. 

With junit suite, there was one new failure but it is just the order of the rows that is different.
1) refActions1(org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.lang.LangScripts)junit.framework.ComparisonFailure:
Output at line 8859 expected:<[2          |K52|OFC       |ROBIN]     > but was:<[1
         |K55|DB        |JOHN ]     >
	at org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.util.CanonTestCase.compareCanon(CanonTestCase.java:109)
	at org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.util.ScriptTestCase.runTest(ScriptTestCase.java:204)
	at org.apache.derbyTesting.junit.BaseTestCase.runBare(BaseTestCase.java:117)
	at org.apache.derbyTesting.junit.BaseJDBCTestCase.runBareOverridable(BaseJDBCTestCase.java:424)
	at org.apache.derbyTesting.junit.BaseJDBCTestCase.runBare(BaseJDBCTestCase.java:441)
	at junit.extensions.TestDecorator.basicRun(TestDecorator.java:24)
	at junit.extensions.TestSetup$1.protect(TestSetup.java:21)
	at junit.extensions.TestSetup.run(TestSetup.java:25)
	at org.apache.derbyTesting.junit.BaseTestSetup.run(BaseTestSetup.java:57)

The query in question in refActions1 is as follows and it returns 2 rows
select * from db2test.dept where dno in (select vdno from
  db2test.vempunion)
  and dno in ('K55', 'K52');

In the master file, the output for this query is as follows(looks like this test is still
not completely converted to junit and that is why there is a master for it)
select * from db2test.dept where dno in (select vdno from
  db2test.vempunion)
  and dno in ('K55', 'K52');
C0         |DNO|DNAME     |DMGRNAME  
-------------------------------------
2          |K52|OFC       |ROBIN     
1          |K55|DB        |JOHN      

With my patch, the query returns the same rows but in different order as shown below
select * from db2test.dept where dno in (select vdno from
  db2test.vempunion)
  and dno in ('K55', 'K52');
C0         |DNO|DNAME     |DMGRNAME  
-------------------------------------
1          |K55|DB        |JOHN      
2          |K52|OFC       |ROBIN     

Since there is no order by clause, should this diff be considered harmless? 
                
> in list multi-probe by primary key not chosen on tables with >256 rows
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-6045
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6045
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Store
>    Affects Versions: 10.9.1.0, 10.10.0.0
>         Environment: Linux Debian 6.0.5
>            Reporter: Tony Brusseau
>         Attachments: DERBY6045_patch1_diff.txt, optimizerTraceOutputFor10_8.txt, optimizerTraceOutputForTrunk.txt,
optimizerTraceOutputWithUpdateStatsFor10_8.txt, optimizerTraceOutputWithUpdateStatsForTrunk.txt
>
>
> I have a table with a long integer primary key field and 11 million rows. I seem to be
unable to load large chunks of rows via id in a reasonably efficient manner.
>   1. If I do individual lookups via the primary key, then a fast indexed lookup occurs.
However, if I do large numbers of such queries, then the time is overwhelmed by round-trip
overhead which makes everything incredibly slow.
>   2. If I use a single query with a disjunction of the primary keys of interest,  then
a table scan is performed (even if the clause only contains 1-3 items), which walks over 11
million rows...incredibly inefficient.
>   3. If I use an IN clause, then a table scan is performed (even if the clause only contains
1-3 items), which walks over 11 million rows...incredibly inefficient.
> I'm guessing that this might have something to do with the fact that I'm using large
integers and really big numbers that don't start anywhere at or about 1 for my keys. Could
this possibly be confusing the optimizer?
> Here are the unlimited query plans for the 3 cases that I enumerated:
> *********************************************************************************************
> [EL Fine]: 2013-01-17 11:09:53.384--ServerSession(582235416)--Connection(1430986883)--Thread(Thread["Initial
Lisp Listener",5,SubL Thread Group])--SELECT TERM_ID, ARG0, ARG1, ARG2, ARG3, FORMULA_HASH,
FORMULA_LENGTH, FORMULA_TYPE, KB_STATUS FROM KB.FORMULA_TERM WHERE (TERM_ID = ?)
> 	bind => [2251799814033500]
> Thu Jan 17 11:09:53 CST 2013 Thread["Initial Lisp Listener",5,SubL Thread Group] (XID
= 4711079), (SESSIONID = 3), SELECT TERM_ID, ARG0, ARG1, ARG2, ARG3, FORMULA_HASH, FORMULA_LENGTH,
FORMULA_TYPE, KB_STATUS FROM KB.FORMULA_TERM WHERE (TERM_ID = ?) ******* Project-Restrict
ResultSet (3):
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 1
> Rows filtered = 0
> restriction = false
> 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: 1.00
> 	optimizer estimated cost: 6.59
> Source result set:
> 	Index Row to Base Row ResultSet for FORMULA_TERM:
> 	Number of opens = 1
> 	Rows seen = 1
> 	Columns accessed from heap = {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: 1.00
> 		optimizer estimated cost: 6.59
> 		Index Scan ResultSet for FORMULA_TERM using constraint KB_FORMULA_TERM_TERM_ID_PK at
read committed isolation level using share row locking chosen by the optimizer
> 		Number of opens = 1
> 		Rows seen = 1
> 		Rows filtered = 0
> 		Fetch Size = 1
> 			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=3
> 			Number of rows qualified=1
> 			Number of rows visited=1
> 			Scan type=btree
> 			Tree height=-1
> 			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: 1.00
> 			optimizer estimated cost: 6.59
> [EL Fine]: 2013-01-17 11:01:00.732--ServerSession(1237006689)--Connection(927179828)--Thread(Thread["Initial
Lisp Listener",5,SubL Thread Group])--SELECT TERM_ID, ARG0, ARG1, ARG2, ARG3, FORMULA_HASH,
FORMULA_LENGTH, FORMULA_TYPE, KB_STATUS FROM KB.FORMULA_TERM WHERE (((TERM_ID = ?) OR (TERM_ID
= ?)) OR (TERM_ID = ?))
> 	bind => [2251799814033500, 2251799814033501, 2251799814033499]
> Thu Jan 17 11:01:10 CST 2013 Thread["Initial Lisp Listener",5,SubL Thread Group] (XID
= 4711078), (SESSIONID = 3), SELECT TERM_ID, ARG0, ARG1, ARG2, ARG3, FORMULA_HASH, FORMULA_LENGTH,
FORMULA_TYPE, KB_STATUS FROM KB.FORMULA_TERM WHERE (((TERM_ID = ?) OR (TERM_ID = ?)) OR (TERM_ID
= ?)) ******* Project-Restrict ResultSet (3):
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 3
> Rows filtered = 0
> restriction = false
> 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: 1176730.30
> 	optimizer estimated cost: 5931065.54
> Source result set:
> 	Project-Restrict ResultSet (2):
> 	Number of opens = 1
> 	Rows seen = 11767298
> 	Rows filtered = 11767295
> 	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: 1176730.30
> 		optimizer estimated cost: 5931065.54
> 	Source result set:
> 		Table Scan ResultSet for FORMULA_TERM at read committed isolation level using instantaneous
share row locking chosen by the optimizer
> 		Number of opens = 1
> 		Rows seen = 11767298
> 		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=34358
> 			Number of rows qualified=11767298
> 			Number of rows visited=11767298
> 			Scan type=heap
> 			start position:
> 				null
> 			stop position:
> 				null
> 			qualifiers:
> 				None
> 			optimizer estimated row count: 1176730.30
> 			optimizer estimated cost: 5931065.54
> [EL Fine]: 2013-01-17 11:27:00.627--ServerSession(1237006689)--Connection(1688096771)--Thread(Thread["Initial
Lisp Listener",5,SubL Thread Group])--SELECT TERM_ID, ARG0, ARG1, ARG2, ARG3, FORMULA_HASH,
FORMULA_LENGTH, FORMULA_TYPE, KB_STATUS FROM KB.FORMULA_TERM WHERE (TERM_ID IN (?,?,?))
> 	bind => [2251799814033500, 2251799814033501, 2251799814033499]
> Thu Jan 17 11:47:26 CST 2013 Thread["Initial Lisp Listener",5,SubL Thread Group] (XID
= 4711080), (SESSIONID = 3), SELECT TERM_ID, ARG0, ARG1, ARG2, ARG3, FORMULA_HASH, FORMULA_LENGTH,
FORMULA_TYPE, KB_STATUS FROM KB.FORMULA_TERM WHERE (TERM_ID IN (?,?,?)) ******* Project-Restrict
ResultSet (3):
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 3
> Rows filtered = 0
> restriction = false
> 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: 1176730.30
> 	optimizer estimated cost: 5931065.54
> Source result set:
> 	Project-Restrict ResultSet (2):
> 	Number of opens = 1
> 	Rows seen = 11767298
> 	Rows filtered = 11767295
> 	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: 1176730.30
> 		optimizer estimated cost: 5931065.54
> 	Source result set:
> 		Table Scan ResultSet for FORMULA_TERM at read committed isolation level using instantaneous
share row locking chosen by the optimizer
> 		Number of opens = 1
> 		Rows seen = 11767298
> 		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=34358
> 			Number of rows qualified=11767298
> 			Number of rows visited=11767298
> 			Scan type=heap
> 			start position:
> 				null
> 			stop position:
> 				null
> 			qualifiers:
> 				None
> 			optimizer estimated row count: 1176730.30
> 			optimizer estimated cost: 5931065.54

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Mime
View raw message