db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: URGENT!!! JDBC SQL query taking long time for large IN clause
Date Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:04:52 GMT
It is impossible to say what the performance of the query can be without
knowing exact values of all the values of the IN LIST.  But it is 
possible to get some idea assuming some worst case behavior, and from 
that I am going to guess you will never come close to 100ms with an 
uncached database, on hardware using some sort of standard disk based
hard drive.

I do think the query may go faster with index and query tweeking, but
100ms to an uncached db and non-clustered unique values in that IN list
is never going to go that fast.  Adding up just what is posted it looks
like this is a 1.2 gig db.

You posted the space for the tables and indexes.  The interesting ones
are the big ones.  You have 5 tables or indexes over 1000 pages big.  If 
in the worst case your 1000 value IN list happens to be on 1000 
different pages then Derby is going to need to do at least 1000 i/o's to 
get to them - I usually use back of envelope of max 100 i/o's per second
(even if your disk has specs that say higher rate this I/O is not
going to
get streamed as fast as possible by this query, it is going to ask for
page, process it, do some join work then later ask for another page, ...) :
> CATEGORY_MASTER            0    103    0    0    4096    0
> SQL090406091302600        1    55    0    0    4096    0
> SQL090406091302601        1    160    0    1    4096    0
> SQL090406091302730        1    1    0    1    4096    0
> OBJECT_MASTER            0    10497    0    0    4096    0
> SQL090406091302760        1    5340    0    1    4096    0
> SQL090406091302761        1    16708    0    410    4096    0
> OBJECT_CATEGORY_MAPPING        0    150794    0    0    4096    0
> OBJECT_CATEGORY_MAPPING_INDEX    1    112177    0    57    4096    0

There was work done in 10.3 on IN-LISTS, making them perform more like 
unions,  See DERBY-47.  So if you have a choice of releases I would 
suggest you move to 10.4 and post query plan and results against that.
The basic idea of that change was to allow the
system to do 1 probe into an index for each value in the IN-LIST, before
this change DERBY could only sort the values in the IN list and then 
limit a index scan to the lowest and biggest values in the in list.
So for instance for OBJECT_CATEGORY_MAPPING_INDEX, worst case it might
have to scan 112177 pages to find the 1000 rows, where worst case for
probing would be 1000 page (plus btree parent index pages, but those
are much more likely cached).  The problem is that there is definitely
overhead for probing one at a time, scans go much faster - so there is
a crossover point - ie. I would guess it would likely better to scan all
112177 pages then do 100,000 probes.

arindam.bhattacharjee wrote:
> Hello Knut,
> 
> Thanks for your quick response. This is a sample database which I have
> created just for testing out the performance and has been written to only
> once in one go. I tried temp tables but that is just too slow. The IN clause
> has values which comes from another source and I can't modify that.
> 
> However, I will try out what you state below. But still, I wanted to get
> your pulse about whether Derby can respond in sub 100 millisec time with the
> table sizes you see above? 
> 
> I find that:
> 
> select category_master.category_name, count(category_master.category_name)
> as category_count
> from
> 	(
> 		select internal.object_id
> 		from
> 		(
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1002) union all
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1001) union all
> 			values(1001) union all .......
> 			values(9999)
> 		) as internal(object_id)
> 
> 	) as external_ids,
> 	object_master,
> 	category_master,
> 	object_category_mapping
> where
> 	external_ids.object_id = object_master.object_id and
> 	external_ids.object_id = object_category_mapping.object_id and
> 	object_master.object_id = object_category_mapping.object_id and
> 	category_master.category_id = object_category_mapping.category_id
> group by
> 	category_master.category_name
> order by
> 	category_count desc
> 
> is much faster unfortunately connection.prepareStatement() is taking way too
> much memory (both stack and heap - I have a constraint of 256 MB MAX memory
> for my JVM) which goes beyond my applications resources. Is there a way I
> can precompile some SQLs which are very expensive to parse during execution.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Arindam.
> 
> 
> Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
>> "arindam.bhattacharjee" <mr.arindam.bhattacharjee@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like my query below to return within 100 millisecs. Please help
>>> me,
>>> and the values for the IN clause comes from outside hence cannot really
>>> change the IN clause to a join on an existing table.
>> Hi Arindam,
>>
>> Does the query run faster if you compress all the tables involved, or if
>> you drop and recreate all the indexes? If so, it is likely that the
>> index cardinality statistics are out of date, which may make the
>> optimizer pick a bad execution plan. Currently, index cardinality
>> statistics are only updated at index creation time, when tables are
>> compressed, and when columns are dropped. A more automatic solution is
>> being worked on. For more details, see:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-269
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3788
>> http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.4/tuning/ctunstats18908.html
>>
>> You may be experiencing some other problem, but this is a problem that
>> keeps coming up, so I think it's worth checking.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> -- 
>> Knut Anders
>>
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message