[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6858?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15140657#comment-15140657
]
somebody commented on DERBY-6858:
---------------------------------
As I mentioned before, this is a complete blocker for me and I am not able to
continue my application until this is resolved. I have been waiting patiently
since I posted this bug and worked with you to reproduce this issue. Now you
have a fully reproducible test case available to you.
Please escalate this issue right away. I literally can't use derby this way.
Increasing the page size only works for the test case and not my main app,
besides increasing the page size will also not work for the test case with more
rows added. As such increasing the page size is a workaround not a fix, and
the workaround won't work in practice even for the test program once you
increase the number of rows. For example, if you increase the page size to the
max, then you can keep increasing the number of rows until the workaround will
no longer work. The increase in rows isn't even a giant amount like 1 million
records, it's more like a few thousand.
As it stands now with such a huge performance hit for such a simple scenario,
it makes Derby pretty useless as a database engine. I'm sorry to be so blunt
as Derby shows great promise and everyone involved has done a great job but
such simple update statements are common practice and used all the time with
databases. If such simple and common statements are so slow for such small
numbers of records, then Derby won't scale well at all. I can't be waiting
hours to update one million records when my data set becomes that large.
I am literally waiting on you and the Derby team to fix this. I really want to
continue using Derby but I can't reasonably do it in it's current state.
Again this is a complete blocker for me and I am literally waiting on you guys
to fix it. Please assign someone to work on it, or please take a look
yourself. You have already been looking at it with me (which I very much
appreciate) already so please make it a priority. I will continue to provide
any assistance I can but the ball is in your court now. I have done what I
could and you now have a reproducible test case which is the biggest hurdle in
fixing many issues. Again please devote your full time to this as I am
literally not able to continue my development.
Thanks
> Apache Derby simple update statement performance becomes 1500% worse when
> adding one byte to a column
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6858
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6858
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 10.11.1.1, 10.12.1.1
> Environment: windows 7 64 bit
> Reporter: somebody
> Priority: Blocker
> Attachments: repro.java, repro.java, repro.java
>
>
> I have 2 tables as follows:
> ParentUpdate
> name varchar(255)
> value int not null
> primary key: name
> ChildUpdate
> parentName varchar(255)
> name varchar(255)
> value int
> data varchar(1000)
> primary key: name foreign key: parentName to ParentUpdate.name
> When I run the statement "update ChildUpdate set parentName = 'Parent 2'
> where parentName = 'Parent 1'" with 2500 records in the ChildUpdate table and
> 1 record in the ParentUpdate table with only a single byte difference in data
> size in the ChildUpdate table, the performance decreases by 15 times.
> When the ChildUpdate data column has exactly 14 bytes of the same character
> the runtime of the above query is about 500 milliseconds. When I add one more
> byte to the data column of ChildUpdate the performance all of a sudden
> becomes about 7500 milliseconds.
> If i then decrease the data size back to 14 from 15 it's fast again. When i
> put it back to 15 it's slow again. This is reproducible every time.
> Can you please help me figure out how to get the same fast performance
> without such seemingly random behaviour.
> The query plans are below for both cases.
> projection = true
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 16
> close time (milliseconds) = 16
> restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
> projection time (milliseconds) = 0
> optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
> optimizer estimated cost: 796.12
> Source result set:
> Table Scan ResultSet for CHILDUPDATE at read committed isolation
> level using exclusive row locking chosen by the optimizer
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 2500
> Rows filtered = 0
> Fetch Size = 1
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 15
> next time (milliseconds) = 16
> close time (milliseconds) = 16
> next time in milliseconds/row = 0
> scan information:
> Bit set of columns fetched={0, 1}
> Number of columns fetched=2
> Number of pages visited=41
> Number of rows qualified=2500
> Number of rows visited=2500
> Scan type=heap
> start position:
> null
> stop position:
> null
> qualifiers:
> Column[0][0] Id: 0
> Operator: =
> Ordered nulls: false
> Unknown return value: false
> Negate comparison result: false
> optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
> optimizer estimated cost: 796.12
> total time: ~500 milliseconds
> and the slow version
> Statement Name:
> null
> Statement Text:
> update ChildUpdate set parentName = 'Parent 2' where parentName = 'Parent
> 1'
> Parse Time: 0
> Bind Time: 0
> Optimize Time: 0
> Generate Time: 0
> Compile Time: 0
> Execute Time: -1453199485700
> Begin Compilation Timestamp : 2016-01-19 05:31:25.684
> End Compilation Timestamp : 2016-01-19 05:31:25.684
> Begin Execution Timestamp : 2016-01-19 05:31:25.7
> End Execution Timestamp : 2016-01-19 05:31:33.141
> Statement Execution Plan Text:
> Update ResultSet using row locking:
> deferred: true
> Rows updated = 2500
> Indexes updated = 2
> Execute Time = -1453199485747
> Normalize ResultSet:
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 2500
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 47
> close time (milliseconds) = 0
> optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
> optimizer estimated cost: 810.94
> Source result set:
> Project-Restrict ResultSet (3):
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 2500
> Rows filtered = 0
> restriction = false
> projection = true
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 32
> close time (milliseconds) = 0
> restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
> projection time (milliseconds) = 0
> optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
> optimizer estimated cost: 810.94
> Source result set:
> Project-Restrict ResultSet (2):
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 2500
> Rows filtered = 0
> restriction = false
> projection = true
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 32
> close time (milliseconds) = 0
> restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
> projection time (milliseconds) = 0
> optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
> optimizer estimated cost: 810.94
> Source result set:
> Index Scan ResultSet for CHILDUPDATE using index TESTINDEX at
> read committed isolation level using exclusive row locking chosen by the
> optimizer
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 2500
> Rows filtered = 0
> Fetch Size = 1
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 32
> close time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time in milliseconds/row = 0
> scan information:
> Bit set of columns fetched={0, 1, 2}
> Number of columns fetched=3
> Number of deleted rows visited=0
> Number of pages visited=42
> Number of rows qualified=2500
> Number of rows visited=2500
> Scan type=btree
> Tree height=2
> start position:
> None
> stop position:
> None
> qualifiers:
> Column[0][0] Id: 1
> Operator: =
> Ordered nulls: false
> Unknown return value: false
> Negate comparison result: false
> optimizer estimated row count: 51.50
> optimizer estimated cost: 810.94
> total time: ~7 seconds 500 milliseconds
> please also see post:
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34874762/apache-derby-simple-update-statement-performance-becomes-1500-worse-when-adding
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
