I changed the test to use MongoDB [1] and I don't see a performance degradation with this setup [2].
Please keep us posted of your findings. Thanks! Martin [1] https://github.com/martinweiler/job-service-refactor-test/tree/mongodb [2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NfacXaxJlgRMw4OQ5S20cvkzvaUKUVFj/view?usp=sharing ________________________________________ From: Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <ftira...@redhat.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 11:40 AM To: dev@kie.apache.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] Performance issues with data-index persistence addon yes, it can be index degradation because of size, but I believe (I might be wrong) the db is too small (yet) for that. But, eventually, Postgres, when the DB is huge enough, unavoidably will behave like the graphic that Martin sent. Since I believe we are not huge enough (yet), lets rule out another issue by analysing the sql logs (I requested those to Martin offline and he is going to kindly collect them). Also Im curious to know if Mongo behave in the same way. On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 7:25 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < egonza...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Francisco, > I would highly recommend to check indexes and how the updates work in data > index to avoid full scan table and lock the full table. Some db are very > sensitive to that. > > El mié, 7 feb 2024, 18:41, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > ftira...@redhat.com> escribió: > > > Hi Martin, > > While I analyze the data, let me ask you if it is possible to perform > > another check (similar in a way to disabling data-index like you do) Can > > you switch to MongoDB persistence and check if the same degradation that > is > > there for postgres remains? > > I do not know if this is feasible but will certainly indicate the problem > > is on the postgres storage layer and I do not have a clear prediction of > > what we will see when doing this switch. > > > > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 6:37 PM Martin Weiler <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Francisco, > > > > > > thanks for your work on this important topic! > > > > > > I would like to share some test results here, which might help to > improve > > > the codebase even further. I am using the jmeter based test case from > > Pere > > > and Enrique (thanks guys!) [1] which uses a load of 30 threads to > > > > > > 1) start a new process instance (POST) > > > 2) retrieve tasks for a user (GET) > > > 3) fetches task details (GET) > > > 4) complete a task (POST) > > > 5) execute a query on data-audit > > > > > > With this test setup, I noticed that the performance for the POST > > > requests, in particular the one to start a new process instance, > degrades > > > over time - see graph [2]. If I run the same test without data-index, > > then > > > there is no such performance degradation [3]. You can find a thread > dump > > > captured a few minutes into the first test here [4] that might help to > > see > > > some of the contention points. > > > > > > I'd appreciate if you could take a look and see if there is something > > that > > > can be further improved based on your previous work. If you need any > > > additional data, let me know, but otherwise it is straightforward to > run > > > the jmeter test as well. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Martin > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/pefernan/job-service-refactor-test/ > > > [2] > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gqn-ixE05kXv2jdssAUlnMuUVcHxIYZ0/view?usp=sharing > > > [3] > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gVNyb4JYg_bA18bNhY9dEDbPn3TOxL7/view?usp=sharing > > > [4] > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jVrtsO49gCvUlnaC9AUAtkVKTm4PbdUv/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti <ftira...@redhat.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 9:13 AM > > > To: dev@kie.apache.org > > > Cc: Pere Fernandez Perez > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] Performance issues with data-index > > > persistence addon > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > I did not take times (which depends on a number of variables that > > > drastically change between environments), but verify that the number of > > > updates has been reduced drastically without losing functionality, > which > > is > > > objectively a good thing. If before the change, for every node > executed, > > we > > > have an update for every node previously executed, so if a process have > > 50 > > > nodes to execute, we were performing nearly 50*51/2 updates, which > gives > > us > > > a total of 1275 updates, now we have just one for every node being > > > executed, implying a total of 50 updates. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 3:18 PM Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> > wrote: > > > > > > > Francisco, > > > > > > > > I noticed that your PR has been merged, but I was expecting (at least > > > > was my understanding from this thread) that before merging some > > > > benchmark data would be shared in advance - to assess the > cost/benefit > > > > of such a decent size change. > > > > > > > > Do you have any information to share? > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 4:02 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > > > <ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Yes, as intended, now we have one select and one insert/update per > > node > > > > > event. > > > > > I moved the PR as ready for review and give @Pere Fernandez Perez > > > > > <pefer...@redhat.com> permission to the branch so he can edit it > in > > > the > > > > > next two weeks (Ill be on PTO) if desired, before merging. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:58 PM Alex Porcelli <a...@porcelli.me> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Cool, thank you Francisco! > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you manage to get some preliminary data about improvements? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:52 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > > > > > <ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, after some delay because of quarkus 3 migration. Im > refining > > > > this > > > > > > > draft PR > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/pull/1941 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 5:48 PM Alex Porcelli < > a...@porcelli.me> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any update or new findings on this topic? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 8:38 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > > > > > > > > <ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > After considering different options to improve performance, > > we > > > > feel > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > is time to "partially" move away from the current Map style > > > > > > interface ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/blob/main/persistence-commons/persistence-commons-api/src/main/java/org/kie/kogito/persistence/api/Storage.java > > > > > > > > ) > > > > > > > > > which was shared with Trusty, to one more suitable for > usage > > > > with a > > > > > > > > > relational DB like postgresql (but still compatible with > big > > > > table > > > > > > dbs). > > > > > > > > > The idea will be to replace generic Storage interface by > four > > > > > > specific > > > > > > > > > interfaces (which will inherit from a common one that keeps > > the > > > > query > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > at is it. with get and query methods), that will include > the > > > > required > > > > > > > > > modification operations for the four DataIndex "domains": > > > > > > > > processinstance, > > > > > > > > > usertask, processdefinitions and jobs. Those interfaces > will > > > > define > > > > > > > > methods > > > > > > > > > like addNode, addVariable, updateTask, addAttachment..... > > that > > > > will > > > > > > allow > > > > > > > > > the persistent layer implementation to just update the > > needed > > > > info > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > DB (for example, for addNode in Postgres, just insert a > row > > > into > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > > table, for addNode in Mongo, basically the same atomic > upsert > > > > > > operation > > > > > > > > > that is currently done). Therefore, we increase performance > > for > > > > > > Postgres > > > > > > > > > and keep the current one for Mongo. The current DB schemas > > > won't > > > > be > > > > > > > > > touched. > > > > > > > > > Since the code change is large, I do not think I'll be able > > to > > > > have > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > PR > > > > > > > > > ready till next week. > > > > > > > > > But before starting, please let me know if that approach is > > > fine > > > > for > > > > > > you. > > > > > > > > > Best regards. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 6:55 PM Alex Porcelli < > > > a...@porcelli.me> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Francisco to getting deeper on this… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking forward to see the results of your suggested > > > > improvements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 9:40 AM Francisco Javier Tirado > > > Sarti < > > > > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I forgot to attach the queries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 3:04 PM Francisco Javier Tirado > > > > Sarti < > > > > > > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > > > > > > > >> A brief update on this topic. > > > > > > > > > > >> After doing a simple test with example > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-examples/tree/stable/serverless-workflow-examples/serverless-workflow-data-index-quarkus > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > >> the number of updates over Nodes table is n*n, so we > > > manage > > > > to > > > > > > > > obtain a > > > > > > > > > > >> perfect quadratic performance degradation. The problem > > is > > > > worse > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > case > > > > > > > > > > >> of Serverless Workflow than in BPMN because we the > > number > > > of > > > > > > nodes > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > >> greater than the number of states. In that example N > is > > > 16, > > > > but > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > > >> complex workflow it would be certainly large. > > > > > > > > > > >> I think that this is more related to how we are > handling > > > > JPA in > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > code, > > > > > > > > > > >> in particular the mapping from model to entity > > (basically > > > > JPA is > > > > > > > > blind > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > >> has to update all nodes for every write because it > > > believes > > > > the > > > > > > > > node has > > > > > > > > > > >> been updated, although it is not) than an issue in the > > > table > > > > > > > > definition. > > > > > > > > > > >> In fact, when using JPA, separating the server model > > from > > > > the > > > > > > JPA > > > > > > > > > > entity is > > > > > > > > > > >> not a good idea, especially if the entity contains > > > > collections. > > > > > > I > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > try > > > > > > > > > > >> to change that without breaking anything. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:10 PM Enrique Gonzalez > > > Martinez < > > > > > > > > > > >> egonza...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> After the events split you now will need to create a > > node > > > > > > instance > > > > > > > > > > >>> model instance of making independent from the process > > > > instance. > > > > > > > > > > >>> That should do the trick. > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Regarding deleting/inserting it was fixed at some > > point. > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> El mar, 21 nov 2023 a las 20:22, Francisco Javier > > Tirado > > > > Sarti > > > > > > > > > > >>> (<ftira...@redhat.com>) escribió: > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I have a task to review performance of > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > ProcessInstanceNodeDataEventMerger > > > > > > > > > > >>> > My idea is to reduce the number of delete inserts > > when > > > > > > processing > > > > > > > > > > >>> events > > > > > > > > > > >>> > and try to do it incremental. > > > > > > > > > > >>> > That should improve performance. > > > > > > > > > > >>> > PS: > > > > > > > > > > >>> > I was planning to send an e-mail tomorrow > announcing > > > > that in > > > > > > > > case you > > > > > > > > > > >>> were > > > > > > > > > > >>> > already working on a fix for that. I assume you are > > not > > > > and I > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > >>> > sending a PR soon. > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 6:09 PM Martin Weiler > > > > > > > > > > <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > I looked into the new examples using data-index > > > > persistence > > > > > > > > addon - > > > > > > > > > > >>> Neus' > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > PR#1813 [1] for serverless and Pere's branch [2] > > for > > > > > > workflow > > > > > > > > > > (great > > > > > > > > > > >>> job > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > both!) - and they work without issues using > single > > > > > > requests. > > > > > > > > > > >>> However, under > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > some load (I used 'ab' for testing with a light > > > > > > concurrency of > > > > > > > > 10 > > > > > > > > > > >>> parallel > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > requests) I ran into the following problems: > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > (1) Large number of insert/delete calls (eg. for > > > tables > > > > > > such as > > > > > > > > > > >>> nodes, > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > definitions, etc) > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > (2) Hibernate OptimisticLockExceptions / > > > > > > StaleStateExceptions > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > (3) DB deadlocks > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > (4) Error responses, slow response times > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > The reason I am reaching out with this topic here > > is > > > to > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > out if > > > > > > > > > > >>> we are > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > aware of this issue, and if someone is already > > > looking > > > > > > into or > > > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > assigned to it? > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-examples/pull/1813 > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pefernan/kogito-examples/tree/example_data-index_persistence > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > > dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > > > dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > > dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@kie.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@kie.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
