[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-47?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12479350
]
A B commented on DERBY-47:
--------------------------
> maybe it's possible to explore why we ended up with 26 arguments here?
Good question, Bryan. The relevant code in codeGen_v1.patch is as follows:
+ /* If we're going to generate a list of IN-values for index
probing
+ * at execution time then we push TableScanResultSet arguments
plus
+ * two additional arguments: 1) the list of IN-list values, and
2)
+ * a boolean indicating whether or not the IN-list values are
already
+ * sorted.
+ */
+ if (genInListVals)
{
+ numArgs = 26;
What that comment does not say is that the reason we use TableScanresultSet
arguments plus 2 is that the new result set, MultiProbeTableScanResultSet,
extends TableScanResultSet and depends on TableScanResultSet to do most of the
work. Therefore we need all of the usual (24) arguments for TableScanResultSet
, plus two additional arguments for logic specific to multi-probing. The
latest patch, d47_mp_exec_v1.patch, includes the new
MultiProbeTableScanResultSet class, which hopefully shows how things are
expected to work.
> (or maybe you have; I'm a patch-or-two behind :) ),
Oops! My apologies. For some reason I took your previous comment to mean that
you had already looked at the various patches up to and including codeGen_v1,
and that you didn't have any suggestions. I see now that you were (perhaps?)
indicating that you were in the *process* of looking at the patches but were
not yet done.
Sorry for rushing on this one. I'll let the exec_v1 patch sit for a while (at
least until Monday) to give you (and any other developers who may be in a
similar situation) ample review time. I'll post again before I commit and if
you have any feedback or else would like a few more days, feel free to say so.
I appreciate you looking at these patches and didn't mean to hurry or otherwise
overlook your comments. Take all the time you need, and please continue to ask
any questions you may have.
Thanks again for your time!
> Some possible improvements to IN optimization
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-47
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-47
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.0.2.0
> Environment: all
> Reporter: Sunitha Kambhampati
> Assigned To: A B
> Attachments: d47_engine_doNotCommit_v1.patch,
> d47_engine_doNotCommit_v1.stat, d47_mp_addlTestCases.patch,
> d47_mp_CBO_MoAP_v1.patch, d47_mp_CBO_MoAP_v1.stat, d47_mp_codeGen_v1.patch,
> d47_mp_codeGen_v1.stat, d47_mp_exec_v1.patch, d47_mp_exec_v1.stat,
> d47_mp_relOpPredCheck_v1.patch, d47_mp_relOpPredCheck_v1.stat,
> derby-47-performance-data.txt, derby-47-performance-data.txt,
> Derby47PerformanceTest.java, Derby47PerformanceTest.java,
> InListOperatorNode.java, QueryPlanUniqueIndexAndWordIndexOneTerm.txt,
> QueryPlanUniqueIndexAndWordIndexTwoTerms.txt,
> QueryPlanUniqueIndexOnlyOneTerm.txt, QueryPlanUniqueIndexOnlyTwoTerms.txt,
> readlocks.diff, readlocks_withContext.diff
>
>
> Consider a simple case of -
> A table tbl has 10000 rows, there is a primary key index on i1
> and the query in question is
> select * from tbl where i1 in (-1,100000)
> derby does a table scan of the entire table even though the "IN" list has
> only two values and the comparison is on a field that has an index.
> Briefly looking at the code, it seems like we insert a between and use the IN
> list to get the start and stop values for the scan. Thus the range of the
> values in the "IN" list here plays an important role.
> Thus if the query was changed to select * from tbl where i1 in (-1, 1), an
> index scan would be chosen.
> It would be nice if we could do something clever in this case where there is
> clearly an index on the field and the number of values in the IN list is
> known. Maybe use the rowcount estimate and the IN list size to do some
> optimizations.
> - consider the length of the "IN" list to do searches on the table. ie use
> the IN list values to do index key searches on the table,
> -or try to convert it to a join. Use the "IN" list values to create a
> temporary table and do a join. It is most likely that the optimizer will
> choose the table with "IN" list here as the outer table in the join and thus
> will do key searches on the larger table.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> some query plans that I logged using derby.language.logQueryPlan=true for
> some similar queries:
> Table has ascending values from 0 - 9999 for i1. primary key index on i1.
> GMT Thread[UT0,5,main] (XID = 19941), (SESSIONID = 0), select * from
> scanfixed where i1 in (-1,9999,9998,9997,9996,9995,9994,9993,9992,9991,9990)
> ******* Project-Restrict ResultSet (2):
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 10000
> Rows filtered = 9990
> restriction = true
> projection = false
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 0
> close time (milliseconds) = 0
> restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
> projection time (milliseconds) = 0
> optimizer estimated row count: 750.38
> optimizer estimated cost: 8579.46
> Source result set:
> Table Scan ResultSet for SCANFIXED at read committed isolation level
> using instantaneous share row locking chosen by the optimizer
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 10000
> Rows filtered = 0
> Fetch Size = 16
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 0
> close time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time in milliseconds/row = 0
> scan information:
> Bit set of columns fetched=All
> Number of columns fetched=9
> Number of pages visited=417
> Number of rows qualified=10000
> Number of rows visited=10000
> 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
> Column[0][1] Id: 0
> Operator: <
> Ordered nulls: false
> Unknown return value: true
> Negate comparison result: true
> optimizer estimated row count: 750.38
> optimizer estimated cost: 8579.46
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> l
> 2004-10-14 18:59:47.577 GMT Thread[UT0,5,main] (XID = 19216), (SESSIONID =
> 0), select * from scanfixed where i1 in
> (9999,9998,9997,9996,9995,9994,9993,9992,9991,9990) ******* Project-Restrict
> ResultSet (3):
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 10
> Rows filtered = 0
> restriction = true
> projection = true
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 0
> close time (milliseconds) = 0
> restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
> projection time (milliseconds) = 0
> optimizer estimated row count: 4.80
> optimizer estimated cost: 39.53
> Source result set:
> Index Row to Base Row ResultSet for SCANFIXED:
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 10
> Columns accessed from heap = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8}
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 0
> close time (milliseconds) = 0
> optimizer estimated row count: 4.80
> optimizer estimated cost: 39.53
> Index Scan ResultSet for SCANFIXED using index SCANFIXEDX at
> read committed isolation level using instantaneous share row locking chosen
> by the optimizer
> Number of opens = 1
> Rows seen = 10
> Rows filtered = 0
> Fetch Size = 16
> constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
> open time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time (milliseconds) = 0
> close time (milliseconds) = 0
> next time in milliseconds/row = 0
> scan information:
> Bit set of columns fetched=All
> Number of columns fetched=2
> Number of deleted rows visited=0
> Number of pages visited=2
> Number of rows qualified=10
> Number of rows visited=10
> Scan type=btree
> Tree height=2
> start position:
> >= on first 1 column(s).
> Ordered null semantics on the following columns:
> stop position:
> > on first 1 column(s).
> Ordered null semantics on the following columns:
> qualifiers:
> None
> optimizer estimated row count: 4.80
> optimizer estimated cost: 39.53
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
