[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6045?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13578786#comment-13578786
]
Mike Matrigali commented on DERBY-6045:
---------------------------------------
Tony, at least for the int test that mamta has added we are seeing index scan
used for 10k rows. I am worried now that our test cases may not
be reflecting the actual problem you are seeing in your real environment of
millions of rows. Can you verify in your test case if there are a large
number of rows for the int case you are seeing the bug? Some interesting values
for "large" are those that cause there to be multiple pages in the
base table. In your case you have 32k pages and your test data looks like it
is something like ~20 bytes per row (just a guess from the datatypes
and that varchar only takes up the necessary room). I just pulled 10k out a
hat for mamta's test.
Also can you verify that update statistics has been run on your big table? I
think it is a bug, but it looks like the existing behavior in all code lines
is that you need to run update statistics for the optimizer to pick index scan
in this case, even if the interesting index is unique.
I always worry about optimizer cost bugs with test
cases involving a really small number of rows, as the bugs uncovered there may
not apply to the large number of row case. I think what mamta
is seeing now is, in all cases run update statistics after data is loaded and
before queries are executed:
10.9 - 10 rows index scan, 24 rows table scan , 10k rows index scan
10.8 through 10.3 - 10 rows index scan, 24 rows table scan, 10k rows test not
tried, but assume it will pick index scan
At the low number of rows end if you just look at costs it may make perfect
sense from just a cycle cost perspective to choose a table scan
vs. using index. The reason for this is that I/O cost dominates over the cost
to scan every row on a page. So in the case where the base
table has 1 page and the index has 1 page, pure costing will often choose to
scan the 1 data page rather than pay 1 i/o to get index page and
then another i/o to get data page. For other reasons (mostly to not have to
lock all the rows you see during a table scan) the derby code has been
changed to fudge the costs a little to get index scans chosen
in this case, most notably a single probe query using with an exact key match
using an index. These fixes tend to aplly only to low number of
rows anomaly's, and not to the real life issues like your 11 million row case.
> 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
> Priority: Critical
>
> 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
