[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11891?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Andrew Mashenkov updated IGNITE-11891:
--------------------------------------
    Ignite Flags:   (was: Docs Required)

> Multi-column index - query out of memory
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: IGNITE-11891
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11891
>             Project: Ignite
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: sql
>    Affects Versions: 2.7
>            Reporter: João Fonseca
>            Priority: Major
>
> My application uses a table for logging events. Something like:
>  
> {noformat}
>     create table event (
>        id bigint not null,
>         level varchar(8) not null,
>         timestamp bigint not null,
>         message varchar(4096) not null,
>         primary key (id)
>     ) ;
> {noformat}
> I have two indexes:
>  
> {noformat}
> create index index_event_timestamp on event (timestamp desc)
> create index index_event_level on event (level, timestamp desc) 
> {noformat}
> The idea is to support both the following queries:
>  
> {noformat}
> select * from event order by timestamp desc limit 25
> select * from event where level = 'WARNING' order by timestamp desc limit 25
> {noformat}
> Once the table size increases to several million records, the second query 
> generates OOM on the server. From what I can see (from the explain results), 
> the index_event_level is used to fetch records with WARNING level, but the 
> timestamp column available with the index is not used in the "order by" 
> clause. The server attempts to fetch all records and then sort them by 
> timestamp, despite the index already doing this...
> I removed the second index as a work-around, and the query runs faster on the 
> first index - it scans index_event_timestamp, and retrieves the records with 
> level=WARNING. It's smart to realize that the scan results are already sorted 
> correctly.
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to