Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

Robert Enyedi wrote: Thanks for all of your replies, but I'm not saying that we have a bug here. It's just that for large IN clauses there are many levels of recursive calls in the server. In some cases, whether it is a bug or not depends on the eye of the beholder. As someone already mentio

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

Thanks for all of your replies, but I'm not saying that we have a bug here. It's just that for large IN clauses there are many levels of recursive calls in the server. This reminded me of the other runtime memory limit, the heap. And so I asked for some best practices on sizing these. Regard

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

Bryan Pendleton wrote: I don't think this is DERBY-47. DERBY-47 is the issue that the plan generated by an IN query is inefficient. This issue is that a query with a large number of IN parameters fails to compile due to a stack overflow error. Do we know for sure that it's a compile time err

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

I would report this as a separate issue and possibly link it to DERBY-47, that way anyone who fixes it can also run your test case to make sure it is also addressed. It may be fixed by DERBY-47 but may not. Including a stack trace with the simple test program will help a lot in understanding whe

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

I don't think this is DERBY-47. DERBY-47 is the issue that the plan generated by an IN query is inefficient. This issue is that a query with a large number of IN parameters fails to compile due to a stack overflow error. Good point. Is this issue already known, then? Or would it be helpful f

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

Bryan Pendleton wrote: My problems came from a simple query containing an IN clause with 5000 items in it. I went over this easily by increasing the stack size limit to 1024 KB. Thanks Robert! That definitely sounds like DERBY-47. If you have the time, it'd be great to have some help in workin

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

My problems came from a simple query containing an IN clause with 5000 items in it. I went over this easily by increasing the stack size limit to 1024 KB. Thanks Robert! That definitely sounds like DERBY-47. If you have the time, it'd be great to have some help in working on improving this part

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

Bryan, My problems came from a simple query containing an IN clause with 5000 items in it. I went over this easily by increasing the stack size limit to 1024 KB. The question I'm asking is if there are some best practicing in sizing the heap and stack for the Derby process based on the query

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

I guess someone with more knowledge about Derby's internals may be able to tell you why your specific query requires a larger stack size. I think that the query was noted to use an IN clause, so he may be encountering either http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-47 or http://issues.apache.o

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

Robert Enyedi wrote: Does the lack of answers mean that there are no best practices in setting the stack and heap limits for Derby? Well, not specifically, that I know of. It all depends on how you (and clients connecting to your server) are using Derby. Default stack sizes work very well in

Re: Heap and stack size for Derby server

Does the lack of answers mean that there are no best practices in setting the stack and heap limits for Derby? Regards, Robert Robert Enyedi wrote: Hi, I've recently tested Derby with a SELECT statement containing 5000 elements inside an IN clause. The query looked something like this: SEL

Heap and stack size for Derby server

Hi, I've recently tested Derby with a SELECT statement containing 5000 elements inside an IN clause. The query looked something like this: SELECT field1 FROM table1 WHERE field1 IN (0, 1, 2, ..., 4999) This failed with a server side StackOverflowError. True, I got past this issue by starting