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 Mon, 06 May 2013 19:40:17 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6045?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13650027#comment-13650027
] 

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

I tried the new junit delete test case in 10.10 and I see that the test runs fine on 10.10
without any code changes that went in for this jira. It is possible that the delete test case
does not exactly do what Tony is trying to do. Tony, thanks for doing the additional testing
for a reproducible test case. I am copying part of the junit test here for easier reference

            CREATE TABLE MT_GAF_TOP_LEVEL_TERM_COUNTS (mt BIGINT NOT NULL, term BIGINT NOT
NULL, term_index INTEGER NOT NULL, usage_count BIGINT NOT NULL );
            ALTER TABLE MT_GAF_TOP_LEVEL_TERM_COUNTS ADD CONSTRAINT kb_mt_gaf_top_level_term_counts_pk
PRIMARY KEY (mt, term, term_index);
            CREATE INDEX kb_mt_gaf_top_level_term_counts_mt_index ON MT_GAF_TOP_LEVEL_TERM_COUNTS(mt);
            CREATE INDEX kb_mt_gaf_top_level_term_counts_term_index ON MT_GAF_TOP_LEVEL_TERM_COUNTS(term);

Then I insert 10K rows in the table
            PreparedStatement ps = s.getConnection().prepareStatement(
                "insert into " + DERBY_6045_DATA_TABLE2 +
                " VALUES (?, ?, ?, ?)");
            int numberOfRows = 10000;
            for (int i=1; i<=numberOfRows; i++) {
                ps.setInt(1, i);
                ps.setInt(2, i);
                ps.setInt(3, i);
                ps.setInt(4, i);
                ps.executeUpdate();
            }
Next, I execute following 2 delete statements and check the runtime statistics for them
        if (useParameterMarkers) {
            ps = prepareStatement("DELETE FROM MT_GAF_TOP_LEVEL_TERM_COUNTS WHERE (term =
?) ");
            ps.setInt(1,1);
            ps.execute();
        } else {
        	s.execute("DELETE FROM MT_GAF_TOP_LEVEL_TERM_COUNTS WHERE (term = 2) ");
        }
        rtsp = SQLUtilities.getRuntimeStatisticsParser(s);
        assertTrue(rtsp.usedIndexScan());

        if (useParameterMarkers) {
            ps = prepareStatement("DELETE FROM mt_gaf_top_level_term_counts WHERE (term =
?) OR (mt = ?)");
      	    ps.setInt(1,3);
            ps.setInt(2,4);
            ps.execute();
        } else {
        	s.execute("DELETE FROM mt_gaf_top_level_term_counts WHERE (term = 5) OR (mt = 6)");
        }
        rtsp = SQLUtilities.getRuntimeStatisticsParser(s);
        assertTrue(rtsp.usedIndexScan());


                
> 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: SQL
>    Affects Versions: 10.9.1.0, 10.10.1.1
>         Environment: Linux Debian 6.0.5
>            Reporter: Tony Brusseau
>             Fix For: 10.11.0.0
>
>         Attachments: DERBY6045_patch1_diff.txt, DERBY6045_patch2_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