[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4620?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13219361#comment-13219361
]
Knut Anders Hatlen commented on DERBY-4620:
-------------------------------------------
I took a look at this issue again, seeing if it was possible to move it
further. (I cannot find my copy of the repro anymore, though. And the link to
the repro test case appears to be dead.)
The current patch makes the optimizer's memory estimates more accurate. Since
the existing code underestimates the memory usage,
derby.language.maxMemoryPerTable effectively has a larger value than specified.
So when we fix the estimates, it might be reasonable to increase
derby.language.maxMemoryPerTable to compensate, so that the chosen plans stay
the same for most existing applications.
I ran the tests that failed because of changed plans, with different values for
derby.language.maxMemoryPerTable. lang/subquery.sql (now converted to JUnit and
called SubqueryTest) ran fine when I doubled maxMemoryPerTable to 2048 on a
32-bit JVM. However, on a 64-bit JVM it still failed with that setting.
Increasing it further up to 4096 made the test pass both on 32-bit and on
64-bit.
lang/wisconsin.java was trickier. Increasing maxMemoryPerTable to 2048 fixed
the queries that previously failed because nested loop join was chosen instead
of the expected hash join, but it additionally made some queries that were
expected to use a nested loop join pick a hash join instead. And there were
differences in plans between 32-bit and 64-bit JVMs in this test too.
So it looks as if it's difficult to find a setting that makes the optimizer
pick the same plans for all queries after fixing the estimates. Perhaps it
would be OK to only fix the estimates in this issue, and update the tests to
expect the new plans? A release note could point users to the
derby.language.maxMemoryPerTable property in case they experience that poorer
plans are picked for some of their queries. Another issue could be filed to
investigate what would be a reasonable default value for
derby.language.maxMemoryPerTable.
Alternatively, we could pick a higher maxMemoryPerTable in this issue, even if
it changes some of the plans in lang/wisconsin.java. Since those changes would
be from nested loop joins to hash joins, the new plans should be faster then
the old plans. There's always a risk that increasing maxMemoryPerTable will
cause higher memory usage for some applications, though, and possibly OOME,
even if the new and more accurate estimates compensate for the increased value
in many cases.
> Query optimizer causes OOM error on a complex query
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-4620
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4620
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.5.3.0
> Environment: java version "1.6.0_17"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_17-b04)
> Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 14.3-b01, mixed mode, sharing)
> Linux rocio.xxx 2.6.24-27-generic #1 SMP Fri Mar 12 01:10:31 UTC 2010 i686
> GNU/Linux
> Reporter: Chris Wilson
> Labels: derby_triage10_8
> Attachments: estimate-sizes.diff, query-plan.txt
>
>
> I have a query that generates about 2,000 rows in a summary table. It runs
> fast enough (~30 seconds) on MySQL. The same query on Derby runs for about 10
> minutes and then fails with an OutOfMemoryError.
> I have created a test case to reproduce the problem. It's not minimal because
> it relies on a rather large dataset to reproduce it, and it's not trivial,
> but I don't mind doing a bit of work trimming it if someone can point me in
> the necessary direction.
> You can check out the test case from our Subversion server here:
> http://rita.wfplogistics.org/svn/trackrita/rita/doc/derby-oom-slow-query
> which includes a pre-built Derby database in "testdb.derby". If this database
> is deleted, "test.sh" will recreate it, but that takes about 10-15 minutes.
> Just modify the script "test.sh" to point to your Derby libraries, and run it
> (or just execute the commands in "movement_complete.sql") to demonstrate the
> problem. You can view the source of that file online here:
> http://rita.wfplogistics.org/trac/browser/rita/conf/movement_complete.sql
> The first "insert into movement_complete" (starting around line 4) takes
> about 15 seconds to complete and inserts 5890 rows. The second, starting
> around line 54, does not complete in reasonable time on Derby. On MySQL, it
> runs in 28 seconds and inserts 2038 rows. On Derby, after 10 minutes I get:
> JAVA ERROR: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
> ij> ERROR X0Y67: Cannot issue rollback in a nested connection when there
> is a pending operation in the parent connection.
> (process exits)
> It does not output the query plan in this case.
> Following the suggestion of Bryan Pendleton, I tried increasing the JVM
> memory limit from the default to 1024m, and this allows the query to finish
> executing quite quickly. I guess that means that the optimiser is just taking
> a lot of memory to
> optimise the query, and it spends forever in GC before finally hitting OOM
> and giving up when using the default settings.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
