[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4477?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12803736#action_12803736
]
Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-4477:
--------------------------------------
Thanks for the comments, Kristian, I'll include those in my next rev of the
patch. I don't think always creating a column map matters for performance here,
since the object is allocated at compilation time. Upside is slightly simpler
code at execution time (one test in stead of two), although testing for a
member in a boolean array is slightly expensive that checking to find an empty
pointer perhaps. If you like, I can reintroduce that logic.
> Selecting / projecting a column whose value is represented by a stream more
> than once fails
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4477
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4477
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Store
> Affects Versions: 10.3.3.0, 10.4.2.0, 10.5.3.0
> Reporter: Kristian Waagan
> Assignee: Kristian Waagan
> Attachments: derby-4477-0a-prototype.diff, derby-4477-partial.diff,
> derby-4477-partial.stat
>
>
> Selecting / projecting a column whose value is represented as a stream more
> than once crashes Derby, i.e.:
> ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery("SELECT clobValue AS clobOne, clobValue AS
> clobTwo FROM mytable");
> rs.getString(1);
> rs.getString(2);
> After having looked at the class of bugs having to do with reuse of stream
> data types, I now have a possible fix. It fixes DERBY-3645, DERBY-3646 and
> DERBY-2349 (there may be more Jiras).
> The core of the fix is cloning certain DVDs being selected/projected in
> multiple columns. There are two types of cloning:
> A) materializing clone
> B) stream clone
> (A) can be implemented already, (B) requires code to clone a stream without
> materializing it. Note that the streams I'm talking about are streams
> originating from the store.
> Testing revealed the following:
> - the cost of the checks performed to figure out if cloning is required
> seems acceptable (negligible?)
> - in some cases (A) has better performance than (B) because the raw data
> only has to be decoded once
> - stream clones are preferred when the data value is above a certain size
> for several reasons:
> * avoids potential out-of-memory errors (and in case of a server
> environment, it lowers the memory pressure)
> * avoids decoding the whole value if the JDBC streaming APIs are used to
> access only parts of the value
> * avoids decoding overall in cases where the value isn't accessed by the
> client / user
> (this statement conflicts with the performance observation above)
> We don't always know the size of a value, and since the fix code deals with
> all kinds of data types, it is slightly more costly to try to obtain the size.
> What do people think about the following goal statement?
> Goals:
> ----- Phase 1
> 1) No crashes or wrong results due to stream reuse when executing duplicate
> column selections (minus goal 4)
> 2) Minimal performance degradation for non-duplicate column selections
> 3) Only a minor performance degradation for duplicate [[LONG] VAR]CHAR [FOR
> BIT DATA] column selections
> ----- Phase 2
> 4) No out-of-memory exceptions during execution of duplicate column
> selections of BLOB/CLOB
> 5) Optimize BLOB/CLOB cloning
> I think phase 1 can proceed by reviewing and discussing the prototype patch.
> Phase 2 requires more discussion and work (see DERBY-3650).
> A note about the bug behavior facts:
> Since this issue is the underlying cause for several other reported issues, I
> have decided to be liberal when setting the bug behavior facts. Depending on
> where the duplicate column selection is used, it can cause both crashes,
> wrong results and data corruption.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
