[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1482?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Mike Matrigali updated DERBY-1482:
----------------------------------
I like the current appoach of changing what is stored in SYSTRIGGERS. I think
that it fits well with current architecture.
I have reviewed the serialization code and believe it is correct. If there are
any problems please comment. It would be nice if it were "less tricky", as it
sort of
overloads existing fields in the data structure - but this is not uncommon in
derby when dealing with stored representations of data. I am ok
with the tradeoff of how it is currently implemented vs. the alternative of
upgrading
the actual type of the column in the system catalog or adding a new column to
the
system catalog. It would be nice if we came up with a standard way, well
tested
way to do this - but would not hold up this change on that.
If someone is interested I do think that #1 of Rick's 4 cases could be
implemented as a separate next increment. A simple non-code workaround would
be to drop and recreate the triggers. A code change would be to run
some code at upgrade time to rewrite the triggers. At that point only soft
upgraded databases would not get
the performance improvement, which should not surprise customers much.
> Update triggers on tables with blob columns stream blobs into memory even
> when the blobs are not referenced/accessed.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-1482
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1482
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SQL
> Affects Versions: 10.2.1.6
> Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
> Assignee: Mamta A. Satoor
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: derby1482_patch1_diff.txt, derby1482_patch1_stat.txt,
> derby1482_patch2_diff.txt, derby1482_patch2_stat.txt,
> derby1482_patch3_diff.txt, derby1482_patch3_stat.txt,
> derby1482DeepCopyAfterTriggerOnLobColumn.java, derby1482Repro.java,
> derby1482ReproVersion2.java, junitUpgradeTestFailureWithPatch1.out,
> TriggerTests_ver1_diff.txt, TriggerTests_ver1_stat.txt
>
>
> Suppose I have 1) a table "t1" with blob data in it, and 2) an UPDATE trigger
> "tr1" defined on that table, where the triggered-SQL-action for "tr1" does
> NOT reference any of the blob columns in the table. [ Note that this is
> different from DERBY-438 because DERBY-438 deals with triggers that _do_
> reference the blob column(s), whereas this issue deals with triggers that do
> _not_ reference the blob columns--but I think they're related, so I'm
> creating this as subtask to 438 ]. In such a case, if the trigger is fired,
> the blob data will be streamed into memory and thus consume JVM heap, even
> though it (the blob data) is never actually referenced/accessed by the
> trigger statement.
> For example, suppose we have the following DDL:
> create table t1 (id int, status smallint, bl blob(2G));
> create table t2 (id int, updated int default 0);
> create trigger tr1 after update of status on t1 referencing new as n_row
> for each row mode db2sql update t2 set updated = updated + 1 where t2.id =
> n_row.id;
> Then if t1 and t2 both have data and we make a call to:
> update t1 set status = 3;
> the trigger tr1 will fire, which will cause the blob column in t1 to be
> streamed into memory for each row affected by the trigger. The result is
> that, if the blob data is large, we end up using a lot of JVM memory when we
> really shouldn't have to (at least, in _theory_ we shouldn't have to...).
> Ideally, Derby could figure out whether or not the blob column is referenced,
> and avoid streaming the lob into memory whenever possible (hence this is
> probably more of an "enhancement" request than a bug)...
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
