[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6858?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15154053#comment-15154053
]
somebody commented on DERBY-6858:
---------------------------------
Hi Rick, thanks for the feedback, but the workaround of increasing the page
size was my suggestion and I also pointed out that it DOES NOT WORK for my
application because I have more columns. I also pointed out that if you
increase the number of rows the workaround will likely not work even in the
simple test application attached to this issue. I have just verified that the
workaround indeed doesn't even scale with the simple test app attached to this
issue by increasing the number of rows from 2500 to 5000 for the fast version
of the test. My results are below:
2500 rows of data with page size set (fast version of test) takes 350
milliseconds
2500 rows of data with page size not set (slow version of test) takes 6100
milliseconds
5000 rows of data with page size set (fast version of test) takes 22308
milliseconds
As you can see, setting the pageSize is NOT A VALID WORKAROUND. This does not
work in practice at all since having a database with 5000 rows in this simple
case with only 2 tables and a few columns is already more than 3.65 times
slower than the version that does not set the pageSize for only twice the
amount of data. In reality this version is 67.73 times slower (22308 / 350),
and when we take into account having double the amount of data this still
results in a decrease in performance by a factor of 33.865 (67.73 / 2). This
is NOT A LINEAR DECREASE IN PERFORMANCE. This is orders of magnitude worse
performance once the row count increases even slightly.
I don't think this is acceptable performance for a database.
I appreciate everyone's help on this, especially Bryan who seemed to have
worked the most on it but I really need this issue escalated. Is there any way
to do this? Can this issue be re-prioritized higher? The issue clearly
demonstrates a huge performance degradation in Derby, we have a working test
case which reproduces the issue every time, and Bryan stated that this is a
drastic performance decrease and that he is able to reproduce the issue.
Issues don't get any easier than this to reproduce. It's reproducible every
time, so it's not a tricky multi-threading issue.
I also don't understand why this issue isn't getting more attention. It
demonstrates a fundamental and serious issue in Derby performance in a very
simple scenario with a test app that reproduces the issue every time.
Is there any way to escalate this issue? I am asking that someone please look
at this issue. Is there any way to do that?
> 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)
