[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6045?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13587408#comment-13587408
]
Tony Brusseau edited comment on DERBY-6045 at 2/26/13 7:11 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
****
(BTW, you probably meant 18th Jan rather than 8th Jan)
****
Yes, you are absolutely correct, I mean 18/Jan/13 22:53.
***************
I worked on the test case provided by you on 18/Jan/13 22:53 and found that if
I remove the 2nd unique index(copying below for reference) from the table, we
start using index scan with 10K rows. I plan to add a junit test for this case
to trunk. That test will be named such that it won't get run for now until we
understand the impact of the 2nd unique index on the selection of scan for 10K
rows.
buf.append("ALTER TABLE variable_term ADD CONSTRAINT
kb_variable_term_variable_name_unique UNIQUE (var_name, var_type);\n");
***************
I'm confused about this, the comment from 18/Jan/13 22:53 only has 1 primary
key index and no unique indexes. It also uses regular integers and not bigints.
I'm definitely seeing slow index scans on the latest release even with the
simplified table in that comment. Are you seeing a difference between the
latest trunk and the last release when running this? If so, are you possibly
running with derby.storage.indexStats.debug.keepDisposableStats=true which
would change the results?
was (Author: apb):
****
(BTW, you probably meant 18th Jan rather than 8th Jan)
****
Yes, you are absolutely correct, I mean 18/Jan/13 22:53.
***************
I worked on the test case provided by you on 18/Jan/13 22:53 and found that if
I remove the 2nd unique index(copying below for reference) from the table, we
start using index scan with 10K rows. I plan to add a junit test for this case
to trunk. That test will be named such that it won't get run for now until we
understand the impact of the 2nd unique index on the selection of scan for 10K
rows.
buf.append("ALTER TABLE variable_term ADD CONSTRAINT
kb_variable_term_variable_name_unique UNIQUE (var_name, var_type);\n");
***************
I'm confused about this, the comment from 22:53 only has 1 primary key index
and no unique indexes. It also uses regular integers and not bigints.
I'm definitely seeing slow index scans on the latest release even with the
simplified table in that comment. Are you seeing a difference between the
latest trunk and the last release when running this? If so, are you possibly
running with derby.storage.indexStats.debug.keepDisposableStats=true which
would change the results?
> 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
>
> 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
