+1 with Martin's email. One question though in regards to Martin's point #3 and to previous following statement from Francisco: "*... keeping finishing process instances "for a while" in DataIndex was the only way for users to query the result of straight through processes*" --> Is this the only use case where data index would be needed for STP? I am asking because clients will already get their result in the JSON returned from the synchronous REST call, so adding an extra computing time for data index persistence does not seem right to me in the context of decision services that are supposed to be very fast to return (typically rule tasks+scripts). Or is it that we also want to provide some GraphQL capabilities, even for STP use cases?
Also, what would "*for a while*" mean exactly? Will it be configurable? Will there be a default expiration value? I am assuming this is all work in progress, and you may not have answers to all my questions, no problem with that. Thanks. On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 5:39 PM Martin Weiler <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid> wrote: > IMO, it is good to have this discussion around data sanity now instead of > putting it off until later when data has already accumulated in production > environments. > > Based on the input here, we are dealing with three types of data: > 1. Runtime data - active instances only, engine cleans up the data > automatically at process instance end > 2. Historic log data - data created by data-audit intended for long term > storage > 3. Data-index data - somehow this data falls in between the two > aforementioned categories, with the idea of the data being "recent", but > not restricted to active instances only > > We'd need purge strategies for both #2 and #3 (perhaps different ones, or > with different config settings) in order to prevent unlimited data growth. > > ________________________________________ > From: Enrique Gonzalez Martinez <egonza...@apache.org> > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 7:11 AM > To: dev@kie.apache.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] Performance issues with data-index > persistence addon > > Hi Francisco, > To give you more context about this. > > STP is a concept, a process with certain constraints: no persistence and > returning the outcome in the call (sync execution with no idle states). It > was a requirement from a user in the past. One of the requirements was > leaving no trail. In v7 was easy because you could disable the audit in > that case. Actually we have the same way to do what we did in v7 in here as > you can add/remove index just removing deps. > > We have the same outcome with different approaches and STP is already > delivered. > > El lun, 19 feb 2024 a las 14:46, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti (< > ftira...@redhat.com>) escribió: > > > Regarding STP (which is not a concept that we have in the code. I mean > STP > > are processes as nonSTP are), I guess, as all processes, they were kept > in > > DataIndex once completed because users wanted (and still wants) to check > > the result once the call had been performed. If we want to leave no trace > > of them in DataIndex for some reason, we will need to make it a > > Runtimes concept so DataIndex can handle them in a different way. > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 2:27 PM Enrique Gonzalez Martinez < > > egonza...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Alex: > > > Right now the data index is working in the same way as it did in v7 > with > > > the emitters. The only difference between two impl is that in here the > > > storage is pgsql instead elastic search. You are right regarding is a > > > snapshot of the last state of the process but we did never define how > > long > > > would be alive that dats Honestly i am happy right now with the way it > > > works. The clean up mechanism is still tbd because we still need to > > discuss > > > other stuff first. > > > > > > > > > Regarding stp is to leave no trail because u can get the outcome > directly > > > from the call. It was defined like that in v7. So there is no use for > the > > > index or the audit. > > > > > > El lun, 19 feb 2024, 14:13, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > > ftira...@redhat.com> escribió: > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > There has been some confusion about the purpose of DataIndex. To be > > > honest > > > > I believe they were already sorted out, but your e-mail makes me > think > > > that > > > > is not the case ;). I let Kris to clarify that with you. My view is > > that > > > > data-index is a way to query recently closed and active processes > (the > > > key > > > > here is the definition of recently, which in my opinion should be > > > > configurable) > > > > But, besides that discussion and being pragmatic, keeping finishing > > > process > > > > instances "for a while" in DataIndex was the only way for users to > > query > > > > the result of straight through processes. That's a function that > cannot > > > be > > > > removed right now > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 1:33 PM Alex Porcelli <porce...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > if data index was supposed to provide snapshot view of the process > > > > > instance… why do we keep it after the process instance is finished? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 7:12 AM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Martin. > > > > > > After taking a deeper look at this, I realize that the behaviour > is > > > the > > > > > > expected one. > > > > > > Runtimes DB does not track the completed process instance (that's > > > what > > > > > the > > > > > > JDBCProcessInstances warn is telling us), but DataIndex, as > > expected, > > > > is > > > > > > tracking it in processes and nodes table. And yes it will grow > over > > > > time. > > > > > > What we need is some configurable purge mechanism for DataIndex, > so > > > it > > > > > > eventually removes older completed process instances. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:59 PM Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > > > > > ftira...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > Good catch!. Looks like the skipping performed for process > > > instances > > > > is > > > > > > > not applied to node instances. Something we definitely need to > > > review > > > > > on > > > > > > > the runtimes side. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:59 PM Martin Weiler > > > > <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On a somewhat related note, testing a simple workflow (start > -> > > > > script > > > > > > >> node -> end), I see the following messages in the logs: > > > > > > >> 2024-02-12 22:49:50,493 28758dde544c WARN > > > > > > >> [org.kie.kogito.persistence.jdbc.JDBCProcessInstances:-1] > > > > > > >> (executor-thread-3) Skipping create of process instance id: > > > > > > >> 7083088e-b899-47cb-b85c-5d9ccb0aa166, state: 2 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> So far, so good. And I'd expect to see no trace of this > process > > in > > > > the > > > > > > >> database if I don't have data audit enabled. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> However, the 'processes' table contains a row with state=2, > with > > > > > related > > > > > > >> entries in the 'nodes' table. In a load test, I see these > tables > > > > grow > > > > > > >> significantly over time. Am I missing something to have these > > > > entries > > > > > > >> cleaned up automatically? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > > > >> From: Martin Weiler <mwei...@ibm.com.INVALID> > > > > > > >> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 3:40 PM > > > > > > >> To: dev@kie.apache.org > > > > > > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [DISCUSSION] Performance issues with > > > > > data-index > > > > > > >> persistence addon > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks everyone for your input. Based on this discussion, I > > opened > > > > the > > > > > > >> following PR: > > > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/pull/1985 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> With this change, the performance seems to be stable over > time: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zkullvfrJpRp7TRjxDa41ok6kEIR7Fty/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> ________________________________________ > > > > > > >> From: Gonzalo Muñoz <gmuno...@apache.org> > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 9:42 AM > > > > > > >> To: dev@kie.apache.org > > > > > > >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSSION] Performance issues with > > > > > data-index > > > > > > >> persistence addon > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Great work Francisco, > > > > > > >> Martin, take a look at this link with some related tips (in > case > > > you > > > > > > find > > > > > > >> it useful): > > > > > > >> > https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com/en/index-your-foreign-key/ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> El vie, 9 feb 2024 a las 17:20, Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti > (< > > > > > > >> ftira...@redhat.com>) escribió: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > For the moment being, we will keep JPA till we exhaust all > > > > > > >> possibilities, > > > > > > >> > let's call switching from jpa to jdbc our hidden plan B ;) > > > > > > >> > I already told Martin, but in order everyone to know, just > > after > > > > > > writing > > > > > > >> > the previous email, I thought "what if Postgres is not > > > > automatically > > > > > > >> > indexing foreign keys like mysql?" and, eureka > > > > > > >> > Postgres doc > > > > > > >> > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/ddl-constraints.html > > > > > > >> > Mysql doc > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/constraint-foreign-key.html > > > > > > >> > These are the relevant excerpt > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > *Postgresql* > > > > > > >> > *A foreign key must reference columns that either are a > > primary > > > > key > > > > > or > > > > > > >> form > > > > > > >> > a unique constraint, or are columns from a non-partial > unique > > > > index. > > > > > > >> This > > > > > > >> > means that the referenced columns always have an index to > > allow > > > > > > >> efficient > > > > > > >> > lookups on whether a referencing row has a match. Since a > > DELETE > > > > of > > > > > a > > > > > > >> row > > > > > > >> > from the referenced table or an UPDATE of a referenced > column > > > will > > > > > > >> require > > > > > > >> > a scan of the referencing table for rows matching the old > > value, > > > > it > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > often a good idea to index the referencing columns too. > > Because > > > > this > > > > > > is > > > > > > >> not > > > > > > >> > always needed, and there are many choices available on how > to > > > > index, > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > declaration of a foreign key constraint does not > automatically > > > > > create > > > > > > an > > > > > > >> > index on the referencing columns.* > > > > > > >> > *Mysql* > > > > > > >> > *MySQL requires that foreign key columns be indexed; if you > > > > create a > > > > > > >> table > > > > > > >> > with a foreign key constraint but no index on a given > column, > > an > > > > > index > > > > > > >> is > > > > > > >> > created. * > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > So I asked Martin to especially create an index for > > > > > > process_instance_id > > > > > > >> > column on nodes table > > > > > > >> > I think that will fix the problem detected on the thread > dump. > > > > > > >> > The simpler process test to verify queries are fine still > > > stands, > > > > > > >> though ;) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:10 PM Tibor Zimányi < > > > tzima...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > I always preferred pure JDBC over Hibernate myself, just > for > > > the > > > > > > sake > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > >> > > control of what is happening :) So I would not -1 that > > myself. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Tibor > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Dňa pi 9. 2. 2024, 17:00 Francisco Javier Tirado Sarti < > > > > > > >> > > ftira...@redhat.com> > > > > > > >> > > napísal(a): > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi, > > > > > > >> > > > Usually I do not want to talk about work in progress > > because > > > > > > >> > preliminary > > > > > > >> > > > conclusions are pretty volatile but, well, there are a > > > couple > > > > of > > > > > > >> things > > > > > > >> > > > that can be concluded from the really valuable > information > > > > that > > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > > >> > > > provided. > > > > > > >> > > > 1) In order to be able to determine if the number of > > > > statements > > > > > is > > > > > > >> > larger > > > > > > >> > > > than expected, I asked Martin to test with a simpler > > process > > > > > > >> > definition. > > > > > > >> > > > One with just three nodes: start, script and end. The > > script > > > > one > > > > > > >> should > > > > > > >> > > > change just one variable. This way we can analyze if the > > > > number > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > > queries > > > > > > >> > > > is the expected one. From the single log (audit was > > > activated > > > > > > them) > > > > > > >> my > > > > > > >> > > > conclusion is that the number of insert/updates over > > > processes > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > nodes > > > > > > >> > > > (there a lot over task, that I will prefer to skip for > > now, > > > > baby > > > > > > >> steps) > > > > > > >> > > is > > > > > > >> > > > the expected one. > > > > > > >> > > > 2) Analysing the thread dump, we see around 15 threads > > > > executing > > > > > > >> this > > > > > > >> > > line > > > > > > >> > > > at > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > org.kie.kogito.index.jpa.storage.ProcessInstanceEntityStorage.indexNode(ProcessInstanceEntityStorage.java:125), > > > > > > >> > > > so its pretty clear the code to be optimized ;). I'm > > > > evaluating > > > > > > >> > > > possibilities within JPA/Hibernate, but I'm starting to > > > think > > > > > that > > > > > > >> it > > > > > > >> > > might > > > > > > >> > > > be better to switch to JDBC and skip hibernate. Our > lives > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > >> > > simpler, > > > > > > >> > > > especially with a schema relatively simple like ours > (that > > > > will > > > > > be > > > > > > >> my > > > > > > >> > > > recommendation if I was an external consultant) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 4:15 PM Tibor Zimányi < > > > > > tzima...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > this will be a bit off-topic. However as far as > > > > performance, I > > > > > > >> think > > > > > > >> > we > > > > > > >> > > > > should think about that we have string primary keys > > > (IDs). I > > > > > > would > > > > > > >> > > expect > > > > > > >> > > > > the database systems are much better with indexing > > numeric > > > > > keys > > > > > > >> than > > > > > > >> > > > > strings. I remember from the past, when I was working > > with > > > > > DBs, > > > > > > >> that > > > > > > >> > > > using > > > > > > >> > > > > strings as keys or indexes was a discouraged practice. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > >> > > > > Tibor > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Dňa št 8. 2. 2024, 22:45 Martin Weiler > > > > > <mwei...@ibm.com.invalid > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > napísal(a): > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 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 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > >> 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 > >
