[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-2863?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14510193#comment-14510193
 ] 

Jacques Nadeau edited comment on DRILL-2863 at 4/24/15 1:06 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------

Couple quick questions.  

-what is the total size of the query body? 
-which compiler is being used to compile: janino or jdk?  Can switch to other 
one and report back results?  (There is a setting which sets the threshold 
between the two.) 


was (Author: jnadeau):
Couple quick questions.  

-what is the total size of the query body? 
-which compiler is being used to compile: janino or jdk?  Can switch to other 
one and report back results?  (there is a setting which sets the threshold 
between the two. 

> Slow code generation/compilation(/scalar replacement?) for getColumns(...) 
> query
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DRILL-2863
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-2863
>             Project: Apache Drill
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Daniel Barclay (Drill)
>
> Calling Drill's JDBC driver's DatabaseMetaData.getColumns(...) method seems 
> to take an unusually long of time to execute.
> Unit tests TestJdbcMetadata and 
> Drill2128GetColumnsDataTypeNotTypeCodeIntBugsTest have gotten slower 
> recently, seemingly in several increments:  They needed their timeouts 
> increased, from around 50 s to 90 s, and then to 120 s, and that 120 s 
> timeout is not long enough for reliable runs (at least on my machine).
> From looking at the logs (with sufficiently verbose logging), it seems that 
> the large SQL query in the implementation of getColumns() (currently in 
> org.apache.drill.jdbc.MetaImpl) is leads to 513 kB of generated code.
> That half a megabyte of generated Java code frequently takes around 110 
> seconds to compile (on my machine). 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to