[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2991?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12659168#action_12659168
]
Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-2991:
-------------------------------------------
Here are the results from running the same tests with
derby.language.bulkFetchDefault=1 (20 runs with each configuration):
TEST |TRUNK_TIME |PATCHED_TI&|INCREASE |INC_PERCENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
decimal10columns |28390 |33116 |4726 |16.646706586826348
decimal1column |16638 |17997 |1359 |8.168049044356293
varchar10 |15062 |16426 |1364 |9.055902270614792
varchar100 |18655 |21829 |3174 |17.014205306888233
varchar1000 |47123 |70214 |23091 |49.001549137363924
varcharAll |52362 |78693 |26331 |50.286467285436
When bulk fetch is disabled, saving the position by key is clearly more
expensive for these scans. With small keys, the extra cost appears to be
moderate, but with large keys it is quite high.
> Index split deadlock
> --------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2991
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2991
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Store
> Affects Versions: 10.2.2.0, 10.3.1.4
> Environment: Windows XP, Java 6
> Reporter: Bogdan Calmac
> Assignee: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Attachments: d2991-preview-1a.diff, d2991-preview-1a.stat,
> d2991-preview-1b.diff, d2991-preview-1b.stat, d2991-preview-1c.diff,
> d2991-preview-1c.stat, d2991-preview-1d.diff, d2991-preview-1d.stat,
> derby.log, InsertSelectDeadlock.java, perftest.diff, Repro2991.java,
> stacktraces_during_deadlock.txt
>
>
> After doing dome research on the mailing list, it appears that the index
> split deadlock is a known behaviour, so I will start by describing the
> theoretical problem first and then follow with the details of my test case.
> If you have concurrent select and insert transactions on the same table, the
> observed locking behaviour is as follows:
> - the select transaction acquires an S lock on the root block of the index
> and then waits for an S lock on some uncommitted row of the insert transaction
> - the insert transaction acquires X locks on the inserted records and if it
> needs to do an index split creates a sub-transaction that tries to acquire an
> X lock on the root block of the index
> In summary: INDEX LOCK followed by ROW LOCK + ROW LOCK followed by INDEX LOCK
> = deadlock
> In the case of my project this is an important issue (lack of concurrency
> after being forced to use table level locking) and I would like to contribute
> to the project and fix this issue (if possible). I was wondering if someone
> that knows the code can give me a few pointers on the implications of this
> issue:
> - Is this a limitation of the top-down algorithm used?
> - Would fixing it require to use a bottom up algorithm for better
> concurrency (which is certainly non trivial)?
> - Trying to break the circular locking above, I would first question why
> does the select transaction need to acquire (and hold) a lock on the root
> block of the index. Would it be possible to ensure the consistency of the
> select without locking the index?
> -----
> The attached test (InsertSelectDeadlock.java) tries to simulate a typical
> data collection application, it consists of:
> - an insert thread that inserts records in batch
> - a select thread that 'processes' the records inserted by the other thread:
> 'select * from table where id > ?'
> The derby log provides detail about the deadlock trace and
> stacktraces_during_deadlock.txt shows that the inser thread is doing an index
> split.
> The test was run on 10.2.2.0 and 10.3.1.4 with identical behaviour.
> Thanks,
> Bogdan Calmac.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
