[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4437?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13051238#comment-13051238
]
Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-4437:
-------------------------------------------
So if we could write the sequence value to disk on eviction from the sequence
cache and on shutdown, we'd only leak values on an unclean shutdown/crash,
right? (And on transaction rollback, but that could happen even before these
changes.) The sequence caches are implemented using the generic cache manager,
so it shouldn't be too difficult to implement it, since writing to disk on
eviction and shutdown is exactly what the page cache and container cache do.
Leaking a bigger chunk of values on unclean shutdown sounds acceptable to me,
since applications will have to be prepared for holes in any case.
> Concurrent inserts into table with identity column perform poorly
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4437
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4437
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.5.3.0
> Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Assignee: Rick Hillegas
> Attachments: D4437PerfTest.java, D4437PerfTest2.java,
> derby-4437-01-aj-allTestsPass.diff,
> derby-4437-02-ac-alterTable-bulkImport-deferredInsert.diff,
> derby-4437-03-aa-upgradeTest.diff, insertperf.png, insertperf2.png,
> prealloc.png
>
>
> I have a multi-threaded application which is very insert-intensive. I've
> noticed that it sometimes can come into a state where it slows down
> considerably and basically becomes single-threaded. This is especially
> harmful on modern multi-core machines since most of the available resources
> are left idle.
> The problematic tables contain identity columns, and here's my understanding
> of what happens:
> 1) Identity columns are generated from a counter that's stored in a row in
> SYS.SYSCOLUMNS. During normal operation, the counter is maintained in a
> nested transaction within the transaction that performs the insert. This
> allows the nested transaction to commit the changes to SYS.SYSCOLUMN
> separately from the main transaction, and the exclusive lock that it needs to
> obtain on the row holding the counter, can be releases after a relatively
> short time. Concurrent transactions can therefore insert into the same table
> at the same time, without needing to wait for the others to commit or abort.
> 2) However, if the nested transaction cannot lock the row in SYS.SYSCOLUMNS
> immediately, it will give up and retry the operation in the main transaction.
> This prevents self-deadlocks in the case where the main transaction already
> owns a lock on SYS.SYSCOLUMNS. Unfortunately, this also increases the time
> the row is locked, since the exclusive lock cannot be released until the main
> transaction commits. So as soon as there is one lock collision, the waiting
> transaction changes to a locking mode that increases the chances of others
> having to wait, which seems to result in all insert threads having to obtain
> the SYSCOLUMNS locks in the main transaction. The end result is that only one
> of the insert threads can execute at any given time as long as the
> application is in this state.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
