[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4437?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13051264#comment-13051264
]
Mike Matrigali commented on DERBY-4437:
---------------------------------------
Another option that might fit zero admin better is to have the system
dynamically size the cache. Making it bigger as it notices
that the cache is getting used up in a "short" amount of time and/or sizing it
back down as activity slows. I'd rather see something like this than have the
users tuning the cache size bigger.
Figuring out how to leak less by doing work on eviction/shutdown seems like a
good idea, if it does not have too big a performance
impact. On shutdown does not seem like a problem to me. I don't have a good
feel on how often the cache eviction case happens.
> 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
