db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bryan Pendleton (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (DERBY-6858) Apache Derby simple update statement performance becomes 1500% worse when adding one byte to a column
Date Sat, 30 Jan 2016 22:33:39 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6858?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Bryan Pendleton updated DERBY-6858:
-----------------------------------
    Attachment: repro.java

I made some more modifications to repro.java so that I could
try it both with deferrable and immediate foreign key constraints.

And, I tried running it with both Derby 10.9 and with the current trunk
(which will eventually become Derby 10.13). I wanted to run it with
more releases of Derby but the download site is acting up for me right now.

Here's what I see:

1) db-derby-10.9.1.0-lib-debug:

   a) PageSize.Normal, Constraints.Deferrable: N/A (Syntax Error)
   b) PageSize.Large, Constraints.Deferrable: N/A (Syntax Error)
   c) PageSize.Normal, Constraints.Immediate: 58171 ms.
   d) PageSize.Large, Constraints.Immediate:  1772 ms.

2) Derby trunk (10.13 dev)

   a) PageSize.Normal, Constraints.Deferrable: 60991 ms.
   b) PageSize.Large, Constraints.Deferrable:  2428 ms.
   c) PageSize.Normal, Constraints.Immediate: 58404 ms.
   d) PageSize.Large, Constraints.Immediate:  1643 ms.

It seems clear to me that the impact of the page size is dramatic,
and it is a dramatic difference for both 10.9 and for 10.13, and
it looks like the deferrable-vs-immediate constraints is not really
relevant, since (a) the times are nearly the same for deferrable
as for immediate constraints, and (b) the impact of the page size
is equally dramatic for both.

So I think the deferrable contraints observation is a red herring;
the real question is why the alternate page size has such a
dramatic difference in runtime for this particular test program.

> Apache Derby simple update statement performance becomes 1500% worse when adding one
byte to a column
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-6858
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6858
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 10.11.1.1, 10.12.1.1
>         Environment: windows 7 64 bit
>            Reporter: somebody
>            Priority: Blocker
>         Attachments: repro.java, repro.java, repro.java
>
>
> I have 2 tables as follows:
> ParentUpdate
> name varchar(255)
> value int not null
> primary key: name
> ChildUpdate
> parentName varchar(255)
> name varchar(255)
> value int
> data varchar(1000)
> primary key: name foreign key: parentName to ParentUpdate.name
> When I run the statement "update ChildUpdate set parentName = 'Parent 2' where parentName
= 'Parent 1'" with 2500 records in the ChildUpdate table and 1 record in the ParentUpdate
table with only a single byte difference in data size in the ChildUpdate table, the performance
decreases by 15 times.
> When the ChildUpdate data column has exactly 14 bytes of the same character the runtime
of the above query is about 500 milliseconds. When I add one more byte to the data column
of ChildUpdate the performance all of a sudden becomes about 7500 milliseconds.
> If i then decrease the data size back to 14 from 15 it's fast again. When i put it back
to 15 it's slow again. This is reproducible every time.
> Can you please help me figure out how to get the same fast performance without such seemingly
random behaviour.
> The query plans are below for both cases.
>         projection = true
>             constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
>             open time (milliseconds) = 0
>             next time (milliseconds) = 16
>             close time (milliseconds) = 16
>             restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
>             projection time (milliseconds) = 0
>             optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
>             optimizer estimated cost: 796.12
>         Source result set:
>             Table Scan ResultSet for CHILDUPDATE at read committed isolation level using
exclusive row locking chosen by the optimizer
>             Number of opens = 1
>             Rows seen = 2500
>             Rows filtered = 0
>             Fetch Size = 1
>                 constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
>                 open time (milliseconds) = 15
>                 next time (milliseconds) = 16
>                 close time (milliseconds) = 16
>                 next time in milliseconds/row = 0
>             scan information:
>                 Bit set of columns fetched={0, 1}
>                 Number of columns fetched=2
>                 Number of pages visited=41
>                 Number of rows qualified=2500
>                 Number of rows visited=2500
>                 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
>                 optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
>                 optimizer estimated cost: 796.12
> total time: ~500 milliseconds
> and the slow version
>    Statement Name: 
>     null
> Statement Text: 
>     update ChildUpdate set parentName = 'Parent 2' where parentName = 'Parent 1'
> Parse Time: 0
> Bind Time: 0
> Optimize Time: 0
> Generate Time: 0
> Compile Time: 0
> Execute Time: -1453199485700
> Begin Compilation Timestamp : 2016-01-19 05:31:25.684
> End Compilation Timestamp : 2016-01-19 05:31:25.684
> Begin Execution Timestamp : 2016-01-19 05:31:25.7
> End Execution Timestamp : 2016-01-19 05:31:33.141
> Statement Execution Plan Text: 
> Update ResultSet using row locking:
> deferred: true
> Rows updated = 2500
> Indexes updated = 2
> Execute Time = -1453199485747
>     Normalize ResultSet:
>     Number of opens = 1
>     Rows seen = 2500
>         constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
>         open time (milliseconds) = 0
>         next time (milliseconds) = 47
>         close time (milliseconds) = 0
>         optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
>         optimizer estimated cost: 810.94
>     Source result set:
>         Project-Restrict ResultSet (3):
>         Number of opens = 1
>         Rows seen = 2500
>         Rows filtered = 0
>         restriction = false
>         projection = true
>             constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
>             open time (milliseconds) = 0
>             next time (milliseconds) = 32
>             close time (milliseconds) = 0
>             restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
>             projection time (milliseconds) = 0
>             optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
>             optimizer estimated cost: 810.94
>         Source result set:
>             Project-Restrict ResultSet (2):
>             Number of opens = 1
>             Rows seen = 2500
>             Rows filtered = 0
>             restriction = false
>             projection = true
>                 constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
>                 open time (milliseconds) = 0
>                 next time (milliseconds) = 32
>                 close time (milliseconds) = 0
>                 restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
>                 projection time (milliseconds) = 0
>                 optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
>                 optimizer estimated cost: 810.94
>             Source result set:
>                 Index Scan ResultSet for CHILDUPDATE using index TESTINDEX at read committed
isolation level using exclusive row locking chosen by the optimizer
>                 Number of opens = 1
>                 Rows seen = 2500
>                 Rows filtered = 0
>                 Fetch Size = 1
>                     constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
>                     open time (milliseconds) = 0
>                     next time (milliseconds) = 32
>                     close time (milliseconds) = 0
>                     next time in milliseconds/row = 0
>                 scan information:
>                     Bit set of columns fetched={0, 1, 2}
>                     Number of columns fetched=3
>                     Number of deleted rows visited=0
>                     Number of pages visited=42
>                     Number of rows qualified=2500
>                     Number of rows visited=2500
>                     Scan type=btree
>                     Tree height=2
>                     start position:
>                         None
>                     stop position:
>                         None
>                     qualifiers:
>                         Column[0][0] Id: 1
>                         Operator: =
>                         Ordered nulls: false
>                         Unknown return value: false
>                         Negate comparison result: false
>                     optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
>                     optimizer estimated cost: 810.94
> total time: ~7 seconds 500 milliseconds
> please also see post:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34874762/apache-derby-simple-update-statement-performance-becomes-1500-worse-when-adding



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message