[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4437?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13054594#comment-13054594
]
Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-4437:
--------------------------------------
For the record, here are the default lengths of the preallocated ranges for
sequences in some other databases. These are the maximum number of values which
are leaked if the database crashes:
Oracle: 20
Oracle RDB: 20
DB2: 20
Postgres: 1
As discussed on DERBY-5151, there is no SQL Standard language for tuning the
size of these ranges although the various non-standard approaches are all
pretty similar.
> 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,
> Experiments_4437.html, derby-4437-01-aj-allTestsPass.diff,
> derby-4437-02-ac-alterTable-bulkImport-deferredInsert.diff,
> derby-4437-03-aa-upgradeTest.diff,
> derby-4437-04-aa-reclaimUnusedValuesOnShutdown.diff,
> derby-4437-05-aa-pluggablePreallocation.diff,
> derby-4437-06-aa-selfTuning.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
