just so we are working on the same case, when you run is there
also 0 rows in all the tables?
Bryan Pendleton wrote:
> * I did not see the non-deterministic behavior that Bryan did
> with 10.2 trunk--instead, I consistently see 7+ minutes. However,
> I only ran the query 3 times, which is probably not enough to have
> seen what Bryan saw. Also note that I only ran the DDL one time
> and then I re-ran the query the second two times. So given Mike's
> previous comment, this may be the reason I didn't see the variance
that Bryan did.
Thanks for all the help and good suggestions so far -- they have given
me a lot of ideas to pursue.
I think that Mike's theory about the source of the non-determinism
being due to whether I recreate the tables each time, or re-use the
existing tables, is a good one, and I'll see if I can confirm it
with more tests of my own.
Meanwhile, I'll also investigate the other pointers you passed along.
Regarding the comment that the DERBY-2130 test case is a hairy one,
and it would be easier to start with a simpler one, I agree. On the
other hand, the appeal of the DERBY-2130 test case is that:
a) it is complicated enough to vividly show that there is a problem
b) it is still pruned down enough so that it runs; some of my other
test cases ran for hours and "never" terminated :)
Again, thanks for all the help and ideas; they are much appreciated.
bryan
