You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Ol...@Sun.COM on 2007/01/02 01:07:32 UTC

Regression Test Report - tinderbox_trunk15 491632 - Sun DBTG

[Auto-generated mail]

*tinderbox_trunk15* 491632/2007-01-01 22:12:27 CET

Failed  Tests    OK  Skip  Duration       Suite
-------------------------------------------------------
*Jvm: 1.5*
  SunOS-5.10_i86pc-i386
    1    517    516     0   119.70%     derbyall
    0    6486    6486     0   263.38%     org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.suites.All
  Details in      http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk15/jvm1.5/testing/Limited/testSummary-491632.html 
  Attempted failure analysis in
                  http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk15/jvm1.5/FailReports/491632.html 
-------------------------------------------------------

Changes in      http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk15/UpdateInfo/491632.txt 

( All results in http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/ ) 


Re: Regression Test Report - tinderbox_trunk15 491632 - Sun DBTG

Posted by Army <qo...@gmail.com>.
Oystein Grovlen - Sun Norway wrote:
> I seem to recall than in a discussion on optimizer timeout it was said 
> that the optimizer will terminate if it has run for longer than the 
> so-far lowest estimate for running a query.  I guess that could result 
> in a less optimal plan on a slow computer.  Maybe this is what is 
> occurring here?

I think both the wisconsin and the predicatePushdown tests run with timeout 
disabled (i.e. with the property "derby.optimizer.noTimeout=true" in their 
respective _derby.properties files).  So in theory that should not be the 
problem...(though of course the theory could be wrong).

I think Knut Anders made some good observations regarding the predicatePushdown 
failure; see his comments on DERBY-1902.  If anyone knows the answers to the 
questions he posted there (I don't), that might be a good place to start...

Army


Re: Regression Test Report - tinderbox_trunk15 491632 - Sun DBTG

Posted by Oystein Grovlen - Sun Norway <Oy...@Sun.COM>.
Ole Solberg wrote:
> I rebuilt from the same source, but now with 'debug=false' and ran
> derbyall on the same host: predicatePushdown did NOT fail.
> So this seems to be the same instability as in e.g. the Wisconsin test,
> and triggered by larger/slower(?) code causing an unexpected query plan
> to be chosen.

I seem to recall than in a discussion on optimizer timeout it was said 
that the optimizer will terminate if it has run for longer than the 
so-far lowest estimate for running a query.  I guess that could result 
in a less optimal plan on a slow computer.  Maybe this is what is 
occurring here?

The above strategy makes sense for one-time execution of queries.  In 
the case where one will execute the same prepared query very many times, 
  it may be desirably to spend more time optimizing a query than the 
time it takes to execute the query once.

-- 
Øystein Grøvlen

Re: Regression Test Report - tinderbox_trunk15 491632 - Sun DBTG

Posted by Ole Solberg <Ol...@Sun.COM>.
Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
> Bryan Pendleton <bp...@amberpoint.com> writes:
> 
>> Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>> Did the patch for DERBY-2202 (revision 491632) introduce this failure
>>> in predicatePushdown? Does this require a separate bug?
>> It certainly might have.
>>
>> I did not see any failures when I ran derbyall prior to commit,
>> but perhaps I have a different environment?
>>
>> I'm having trouble coming up with a way that the DERBY-2202 change
>> would have caused a different query plan to be chosen.
> 
> I believe predicatePushdown has failed every now and then since it was
> added. DERBY-1902 and DERBY-1720 are logged for similar failures. I
> would guess it is the same instability as we see in the Wisconsin test
> and some of the other tests that print query plans.
> 

I rebuilt from the same source, but now with 'debug=false' and ran
derbyall on the same host: predicatePushdown did NOT fail.
So this seems to be the same instability as in e.g. the Wisconsin test,
and triggered by larger/slower(?) code causing an unexpected query plan
to be chosen.

-- 
Ole Solberg, Database Technology Group,
Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway

Re: Regression Test Report - tinderbox_trunk15 491632 - Sun DBTG

Posted by Knut Anders Hatlen <kn...@sun.com>.
Bryan Pendleton <bp...@amberpoint.com> writes:

> Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>> Did the patch for DERBY-2202 (revision 491632) introduce this failure
>> in predicatePushdown? Does this require a separate bug?
>
> It certainly might have.
>
> I did not see any failures when I ran derbyall prior to commit,
> but perhaps I have a different environment?
>
> I'm having trouble coming up with a way that the DERBY-2202 change
> would have caused a different query plan to be chosen.

I believe predicatePushdown has failed every now and then since it was
added. DERBY-1902 and DERBY-1720 are logged for similar failures. I
would guess it is the same instability as we see in the Wisconsin test
and some of the other tests that print query plans.

-- 
Knut Anders

Re: Regression Test Report - tinderbox_trunk15 491632 - Sun DBTG

Posted by Bryan Pendleton <bp...@amberpoint.com>.
Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
> Did the patch for DERBY-2202 (revision 491632) introduce this failure
> in predicatePushdown? Does this require a separate bug?

It certainly might have.

I did not see any failures when I ran derbyall prior to commit,
but perhaps I have a different environment?

I'm having trouble coming up with a way that the DERBY-2202 change
would have caused a different query plan to be chosen.

Yip, do you have any theories about whether the DERBY-2202 fix
might have caused this problem?

thanks,

bryan


Re: Regression Test Report - tinderbox_trunk15 491632 - Sun DBTG

Posted by Myrna van Lunteren <m....@gmail.com>.
Did the patch for DERBY-2202 (revision 491632) introduce this failure
in predicatePushdown? Does this require a separate bug?

Myrna

On 2 Jan 2007 00:07:32 -0000, Ole.Solberg@sun.com <Ol...@sun.com> wrote:
> [Auto-generated mail]
>
> *tinderbox_trunk15* 491632/2007-01-01 22:12:27 CET
>
> Failed  Tests    OK  Skip  Duration       Suite
> -------------------------------------------------------
> *Jvm: 1.5*
>  SunOS-5.10_i86pc-i386
>    1    517    516     0   119.70%     derbyall
>    0    6486    6486     0   263.38%     org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.suites.All
>  Details in      http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk15/jvm1.5/testing/Limited/testSummary-491632.html
>  Attempted failure analysis in
>                  http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk15/jvm1.5/FailReports/491632.html
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Changes in      http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/tinderbox_trunk15/UpdateInfo/491632.txt
>
> ( All results in http://dbtg.thresher.com/derby/test/ )
>
>