You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-user@db.apache.org by g....@aurenz.de on 2018/01/24 12:45:37 UTC
Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
Hello everyone,
I'm using Apache Derby v10.14.1.0 and having some problems using the
FETCH FIRST clauses.
https://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/ref/rrefsqljoffsetfetch.html
I'm accessing the database using the Derby Embedded driver.
I have a table which contains some indexes as well as some fields and a
BLOB field. The table is somewhat big (means many rows, ~13 GB).
I'm using a query like this (timestamp has an index):
SELECT * FROM history ORDER BY timestamp DESC FETCH FIRST 10 ROWS ONLY
The query takes ages (about 27 minutes for that ~13 GB table) and I can
see how Derby slowly fills up my harddisk.
And a look in the "tmp" folder of the database shows several ".tmp"
files.
First I get several files having 10 MB, then I get two big files having
5 GB, then the 10 MB files are deleted, then the 5 GB files are deleted
and finally I get the result.
As I thought something is wrong with my application I also did the same
query on the same database and table using SQuirreL v3.8.1. But the
result is the same.
I would have expected that the scheduler of Derby would first look at
the timestamp column / index (which should be sorted), taking the first
10 values from there and
finally reading the first 10 rows matching these values.
Instead it seems that it first processes the " SELECT * FROM history"
part (as memory is not sufficient it swaps it to the harddisk), orders
it and takes the first 10 elements.
Is that correct?
And if that is correct, where is the benefit of FETCH FIRST - beside
that maybe not that much data is transferred (maybe only interesting if
you use Derby not by the Embedded Driver because of the TCP/IP
connection)?
Regards,
Gerrit
Re: AW: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
Posted by Rick Hillegas <ri...@gmail.com>.
On 1/26/18 12:11 AM, g.hohl@aurenz.de wrote:
>
> Hello Rick,
>
> and thanks for your reply.
>
> I will try what you've written as soon as I have time for it.
>
> Unfortunately I already switch to another project and I don't know
> when I will get the time to have a look on this again (blame my
> superiors ;-) ).
>
> 2) is surely a good idea.
>
> 1) Did you also read my 2nd mail?
>
I just responded to that 2nd message. Can you share the CREATE TABLE and
CREATE INDEX statements associated with this table? They may provide
some further clues.
Thanks,
-Rick
>
> I also tried using a subselect, so I have a WHERE clause. I had the
> same idea as you that the scheduler might not recognize the ORDER BY
> and FETCH FIRST.
>
> It was faster, but still not what I would have expected. I've worked a
> lot with Borland Interbase / Firebird, MySQL and especially with
> PostgreSQL.
>
> And PostgreSQL would have done a lot faster than this.
>
> By the way: PostgreSQL also has a more easy to use approach in aspect
> of analysis: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/using-explain.html
>
> Would be great of Derby would offer something similar.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gerrit
>
> *Von:*Rick Hillegas [mailto:rick.hillegas@gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 26. Januar 2018 00:39
> *An:* derby-user@db.apache.org
> *Betreff:* Re: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
>
> On 1/24/18 4:45 AM, g.hohl@aurenz.de <ma...@aurenz.de> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm using Apache Derby v10.14.1.0 and having some problems using
> the FETCH FIRST clauses.
>
> https://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/ref/rrefsqljoffsetfetch.html
>
> I'm accessing the database using the Derby Embedded driver.
>
> I have a table which contains some indexes as well as some fields
> and a BLOB field. The table is somewhat big (means many rows, ~13 GB).
>
> I'm using a query like this (timestamp has an index):
>
> SELECT * FROM history ORDER BY timestamp DESC FETCH FIRST 10 ROWS ONLY
>
> The query takes ages (about 27 minutes for that ~13 GB table) and
> I can see how Derby slowly fills up my harddisk.
>
> And a look in the "tmp" folder of the database shows several
> ".tmp" files.
>
> First I get several files having 10 MB, then I get two big files
> having 5 GB, then the 10 MB files are deleted, then the 5 GB files
> are deleted and finally I get the result.
>
> As I thought something is wrong with my application I also did the
> same query on the same database and table using SQuirreL v3.8.1.
> But the result is the same.
>
> I would have expected that the scheduler of Derby would first look
> at the timestamp column / index (which should be sorted), taking
> the first 10 values from there and
>
> finally reading the first 10 rows matching these values.
>
> Instead it seems that it first processes the " SELECT * FROM
> history" part (as memory is not sufficient it swaps it to the
> harddisk), orders it and takes the first 10 elements.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> And if that is correct, where is the benefit of FETCH FIRST -
> beside that maybe not that much data is transferred (maybe only
> interesting if you use Derby not by the Embedded Driver because of
> the TCP/IP connection)?
>
> Regards,
>
> Gerrit
>
> Hi Gerrit,
>
> Can you share table and index DDL for this problem as well as the
> query plan which Derby chose for the query? See the section on
> "Working with RunTimeStatistics" in the Derby Tuning Guide:
> http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/tuning/index.html
>
> It may be that Derby did not choose the index. That in turn, may have
> happened for 2 reasons:
>
> 1) You're selecting all of the columns in the table and there is no
> filtering WHERE clause. That reduces the likelihood that Derby will
> pick an indexed access path since the optimizer sees this as a full
> table scan.
>
> 2) I don't think that any optimizer support was built for the FETCH
> FIRST clause. That's worth filing a performance bug for. I think that
> the FETCH FIRST clause is only applied at execution time in order to
> short-circuit the number of rows which are returned.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Rick
>
AW: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
Posted by g....@aurenz.de.
Hello Rick,
and thanks for your reply.
I will try what you've written as soon as I have time for it.
Unfortunately I already switch to another project and I don't know when
I will get the time to have a look on this again (blame my superiors ;-)
).
2) is surely a good idea.
1) Did you also read my 2nd mail?
I also tried using a subselect, so I have a WHERE clause. I had the same
idea as you that the scheduler might not recognize the ORDER BY and
FETCH FIRST.
It was faster, but still not what I would have expected. I've worked a
lot with Borland Interbase / Firebird, MySQL and especially with
PostgreSQL.
And PostgreSQL would have done a lot faster than this.
By the way: PostgreSQL also has a more easy to use approach in aspect of
analysis: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/using-explain.html
Would be great of Derby would offer something similar.
Regards,
Gerrit
Von: Rick Hillegas [mailto:rick.hillegas@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2018 00:39
An: derby-user@db.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
On 1/24/18 4:45 AM, g.hohl@aurenz.de wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm using Apache Derby v10.14.1.0 and having some problems using
the FETCH FIRST clauses.
https://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/ref/rrefsqljoffsetfetch.html
I'm accessing the database using the Derby Embedded driver.
I have a table which contains some indexes as well as some
fields and a BLOB field. The table is somewhat big (means many rows, ~13
GB).
I'm using a query like this (timestamp has an index):
SELECT * FROM history ORDER BY timestamp DESC FETCH FIRST 10
ROWS ONLY
The query takes ages (about 27 minutes for that ~13 GB table)
and I can see how Derby slowly fills up my harddisk.
And a look in the "tmp" folder of the database shows several
".tmp" files.
First I get several files having 10 MB, then I get two big files
having 5 GB, then the 10 MB files are deleted, then the 5 GB files are
deleted and finally I get the result.
As I thought something is wrong with my application I also did
the same query on the same database and table using SQuirreL v3.8.1. But
the result is the same.
I would have expected that the scheduler of Derby would first
look at the timestamp column / index (which should be sorted), taking
the first 10 values from there and
finally reading the first 10 rows matching these values.
Instead it seems that it first processes the " SELECT * FROM
history" part (as memory is not sufficient it swaps it to the harddisk),
orders it and takes the first 10 elements.
Is that correct?
And if that is correct, where is the benefit of FETCH FIRST -
beside that maybe not that much data is transferred (maybe only
interesting if you use Derby not by the Embedded Driver because of the
TCP/IP connection)?
Regards,
Gerrit
Hi Gerrit,
Can you share table and index DDL for this problem as well as the query
plan which Derby chose for the query? See the section on "Working with
RunTimeStatistics" in the Derby Tuning Guide:
http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/tuning/index.html
It may be that Derby did not choose the index. That in turn, may have
happened for 2 reasons:
1) You're selecting all of the columns in the table and there is no
filtering WHERE clause. That reduces the likelihood that Derby will pick
an indexed access path since the optimizer sees this as a full table
scan.
2) I don't think that any optimizer support was built for the FETCH
FIRST clause. That's worth filing a performance bug for. I think that
the FETCH FIRST clause is only applied at execution time in order to
short-circuit the number of rows which are returned.
Thanks,
-Rick
Re: AW: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
Posted by Rick Hillegas <ri...@gmail.com>.
Hi Gerrit,
Some responses inline...
On 1/26/18 12:50 AM, g.hohl@aurenz.de wrote:
>
> Hello Rick,
>
> me again. As we had a blackout of our Internet connection I had some
> unexpected time. ;-)
>
> So I tried the analysis of Derby:
>
> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS(1)
>
> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_STATISTICS_TIMING(1)
>
> SELECT * FROM history ORDER BY timestamp DESC FETCH FIRST 10 ROWS ONLY
>
> VALUES SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_GET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS()
>
> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS(0)
>
> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_STATISTICS_TIMING(0)
>
> The result of the "VALUES" command was:
>
> > 1
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------
>
> > Statement Name: \n null\nStatement Text: \n SELECT
>
This is indeed not what you'd expect. The output has been truncated by
the default display width for the ij tool. You need to set
MAXIMUMDISPLAYWIDTH to something very large. Here's an example of how to
do this:
ij version 10.15
ij> connect 'jdbc:derby:memory:db;create=true';
ij> create table foo( a int );
0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
ij> MAXIMUMDISPLAYWIDTH 7000;
ij> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS(1);
0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
ij> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_STATISTICS_TIMING(1);
0 rows inserted/updated/deleted
ij> select count(*) from foo where a <> 0;
1
-----------
0
1 row selected
ij> values SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_GET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS();
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement Name:
null
Statement Text:
select count(*) from foo where a <> 0
Parse Time: 25
Bind Time: 18
Optimize Time: 21
Generate Time: 15
Compile Time: 79
Execute Time: 1
Begin Compilation Timestamp : 2018-01-27 13:27:10.819
End Compilation Timestamp : 2018-01-27 13:27:10.898
Begin Execution Timestamp : 2018-01-27 13:27:10.963
End Execution Timestamp : 2018-01-27 13:27:11.003
Statement Execution Plan Text:
Project-Restrict ResultSet (4):
Number of opens = 1
Rows seen = 1
Rows filtered = 0
restriction = false
projection = true
constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
open time (milliseconds) = 1
next time (milliseconds) = 0
close time (milliseconds) = 0
restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
projection time (milliseconds) = 0
optimizer estimated row count: 1.00
optimizer estimated cost: 100.40
Source result set:
Scalar Aggregate ResultSet:
Number of opens = 1
Rows input = 0
constructor time (milliseconds) = 55
open time (milliseconds) = 1
next time (milliseconds) = 0
close time (milliseconds) = 25
optimizer estimated row count: 1.98
optimizer estimated cost: 100.40
Index Key Optimization = false
Source result set:
Project-Restrict ResultSet (3):
Number of opens = 1
Rows seen = 0
Rows filtered = 0
restriction = false
projection = true
constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
open time (milliseconds) = 1
next time (milliseconds) = 0
close time (milliseconds) = 25
restriction time (milliseconds) = 0
projection time (milliseconds) = 0
optimizer estimated row count: 1.98
optimizer estimated cost: 100.40
Source result set:
Table Scan ResultSet for FOO at read committed isolation
level using instantaneous share row locking chosen by the optimizer
Number of opens = 1
Rows seen = 0
Rows filtered = 0
Fetch Size = 16
constructor time (milliseconds) = 0
open time (milliseconds) = 59
next time (milliseconds) = 0
close time (milliseconds) = 25
scan information:
Bit set of columns fetched=All
Number of columns fetched=1
Number of pages visited=1
Number of rows qualified=0
Number of rows visited=0
Scan type=heap
start position:
null
stop position:
null
qualifiers:
Column[0][0] Id: 0
Operator: =
Ordered nulls: false
Unknown return value: true
Negate comparison result: true
optimizer estimated row count: 1.98
optimizer estimated cost: 100.40
> Not quite what I would have expected. But then I read on a different
> page of the documentation that I have to declare where the information
> of the analysis should be stored.
>
> So I did ('myapp' is the schema of my app):
>
> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS(1)
>
> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_STATISTICS_TIMING(1)
>
> CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_XPLAIN_SCHEMA('myapp')
>
> Executing that command I get:
>
> > ExampleExceptionFormatter: exception message was:
> 'SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_XPLAIN_SCHEMA' is not recognized as a function
> or procedure.
>
> I have a Derby 10.14 and took that command from the documentation of
> that version. So I'm not sure why it gives me this error message.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gerrit
>
> *Von:*Hohl, Gerrit
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 26. Januar 2018 09:11
> *An:* 'Derby Discussion'
> *Betreff:* AW: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
>
> Hello Rick,
>
> and thanks for your reply.
>
> I will try what you've written as soon as I have time for it.
>
> Unfortunately I already switch to another project and I don't know
> when I will get the time to have a look on this again (blame my
> superiors ;-) ).
>
> 2) is surely a good idea.
>
> 1) Did you also read my 2nd mail?
>
> I also tried using a subselect, so I have a WHERE clause. I had the
> same idea as you that the scheduler might not recognize the ORDER BY
> and FETCH FIRST.
>
> It was faster, but still not what I would have expected. I've worked a
> lot with Borland Interbase / Firebird, MySQL and especially with
> PostgreSQL.
>
> And PostgreSQL would have done a lot faster than this.
>
> By the way: PostgreSQL also has a more easy to use approach in aspect
> of analysis: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/using-explain.html
>
> Would be great of Derby would offer something similar.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gerrit
>
> *Von:*Rick Hillegas [mailto:rick.hillegas@gmail.com]
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 26. Januar 2018 00:39
> *An:* derby-user@db.apache.org <ma...@db.apache.org>
> *Betreff:* Re: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
>
> On 1/24/18 4:45 AM, g.hohl@aurenz.de <ma...@aurenz.de> wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm using Apache Derby v10.14.1.0 and having some problems using
> the FETCH FIRST clauses.
>
> https://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/ref/rrefsqljoffsetfetch.html
>
> I'm accessing the database using the Derby Embedded driver.
>
> I have a table which contains some indexes as well as some fields
> and a BLOB field. The table is somewhat big (means many rows, ~13 GB).
>
> I'm using a query like this (timestamp has an index):
>
> SELECT * FROM history ORDER BY timestamp DESC FETCH FIRST 10 ROWS ONLY
>
> The query takes ages (about 27 minutes for that ~13 GB table) and
> I can see how Derby slowly fills up my harddisk.
>
> And a look in the "tmp" folder of the database shows several
> ".tmp" files.
>
> First I get several files having 10 MB, then I get two big files
> having 5 GB, then the 10 MB files are deleted, then the 5 GB files
> are deleted and finally I get the result.
>
> As I thought something is wrong with my application I also did the
> same query on the same database and table using SQuirreL v3.8.1.
> But the result is the same.
>
> I would have expected that the scheduler of Derby would first look
> at the timestamp column / index (which should be sorted), taking
> the first 10 values from there and
>
> finally reading the first 10 rows matching these values.
>
> Instead it seems that it first processes the " SELECT * FROM
> history" part (as memory is not sufficient it swaps it to the
> harddisk), orders it and takes the first 10 elements.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> And if that is correct, where is the benefit of FETCH FIRST -
> beside that maybe not that much data is transferred (maybe only
> interesting if you use Derby not by the Embedded Driver because of
> the TCP/IP connection)?
>
> Regards,
>
> Gerrit
>
> Hi Gerrit,
>
> Can you share table and index DDL for this problem as well as the
> query plan which Derby chose for the query? See the section on
> "Working with RunTimeStatistics" in the Derby Tuning Guide:
> http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/tuning/index.html
>
> It may be that Derby did not choose the index. That in turn, may have
> happened for 2 reasons:
>
> 1) You're selecting all of the columns in the table and there is no
> filtering WHERE clause. That reduces the likelihood that Derby will
> pick an indexed access path since the optimizer sees this as a full
> table scan.
>
> 2) I don't think that any optimizer support was built for the FETCH
> FIRST clause. That's worth filing a performance bug for. I think that
> the FETCH FIRST clause is only applied at execution time in order to
> short-circuit the number of rows which are returned.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Rick
>
AW: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
Posted by g....@aurenz.de.
Hello Rick,
me again. As we had a blackout of our Internet connection I had some
unexpected time. ;-)
So I tried the analysis of Derby:
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS(1)
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_STATISTICS_TIMING(1)
SELECT * FROM history ORDER BY timestamp DESC FETCH FIRST 10 ROWS ONLY
VALUES SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_GET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS()
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS(0)
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_STATISTICS_TIMING(0)
The result of the "VALUES" command was:
> 1
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Statement Name: \n null\nStatement Text: \n SELECT
Not quite what I would have expected. But then I read on a different
page of the documentation that I have to declare where the information
of the analysis should be stored.
So I did ('myapp' is the schema of my app):
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_RUNTIMESTATISTICS(1)
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_STATISTICS_TIMING(1)
CALL SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_XPLAIN_SCHEMA('myapp')
Executing that command I get:
> ExampleExceptionFormatter: exception message was:
'SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_SET_XPLAIN_SCHEMA' is not recognized as a function or
procedure.
I have a Derby 10.14 and took that command from the documentation of
that version. So I'm not sure why it gives me this error message.
Regards,
Gerrit
Von: Hohl, Gerrit
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2018 09:11
An: 'Derby Discussion'
Betreff: AW: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
Hello Rick,
and thanks for your reply.
I will try what you've written as soon as I have time for it.
Unfortunately I already switch to another project and I don't know when
I will get the time to have a look on this again (blame my superiors ;-)
).
2) is surely a good idea.
1) Did you also read my 2nd mail?
I also tried using a subselect, so I have a WHERE clause. I had the same
idea as you that the scheduler might not recognize the ORDER BY and
FETCH FIRST.
It was faster, but still not what I would have expected. I've worked a
lot with Borland Interbase / Firebird, MySQL and especially with
PostgreSQL.
And PostgreSQL would have done a lot faster than this.
By the way: PostgreSQL also has a more easy to use approach in aspect of
analysis: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/using-explain.html
Would be great of Derby would offer something similar.
Regards,
Gerrit
Von: Rick Hillegas [mailto:rick.hillegas@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2018 00:39
An: derby-user@db.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
On 1/24/18 4:45 AM, g.hohl@aurenz.de wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm using Apache Derby v10.14.1.0 and having some problems using
the FETCH FIRST clauses.
https://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/ref/rrefsqljoffsetfetch.html
I'm accessing the database using the Derby Embedded driver.
I have a table which contains some indexes as well as some
fields and a BLOB field. The table is somewhat big (means many rows, ~13
GB).
I'm using a query like this (timestamp has an index):
SELECT * FROM history ORDER BY timestamp DESC FETCH FIRST 10
ROWS ONLY
The query takes ages (about 27 minutes for that ~13 GB table)
and I can see how Derby slowly fills up my harddisk.
And a look in the "tmp" folder of the database shows several
".tmp" files.
First I get several files having 10 MB, then I get two big files
having 5 GB, then the 10 MB files are deleted, then the 5 GB files are
deleted and finally I get the result.
As I thought something is wrong with my application I also did
the same query on the same database and table using SQuirreL v3.8.1. But
the result is the same.
I would have expected that the scheduler of Derby would first
look at the timestamp column / index (which should be sorted), taking
the first 10 values from there and
finally reading the first 10 rows matching these values.
Instead it seems that it first processes the " SELECT * FROM
history" part (as memory is not sufficient it swaps it to the harddisk),
orders it and takes the first 10 elements.
Is that correct?
And if that is correct, where is the benefit of FETCH FIRST -
beside that maybe not that much data is transferred (maybe only
interesting if you use Derby not by the Embedded Driver because of the
TCP/IP connection)?
Regards,
Gerrit
Hi Gerrit,
Can you share table and index DDL for this problem as well as the query
plan which Derby chose for the query? See the section on "Working with
RunTimeStatistics" in the Derby Tuning Guide:
http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/tuning/index.html
It may be that Derby did not choose the index. That in turn, may have
happened for 2 reasons:
1) You're selecting all of the columns in the table and there is no
filtering WHERE clause. That reduces the likelihood that Derby will pick
an indexed access path since the optimizer sees this as a full table
scan.
2) I don't think that any optimizer support was built for the FETCH
FIRST clause. That's worth filing a performance bug for. I think that
the FETCH FIRST clause is only applied at execution time in order to
short-circuit the number of rows which are returned.
Thanks,
-Rick
Re: Derby Scheduler and FETCH FIRST question
Posted by Rick Hillegas <ri...@gmail.com>.
On 1/24/18 4:45 AM, g.hohl@aurenz.de wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm using Apache Derby v10.14.1.0 and having some problems using the
> FETCH FIRST clauses.
>
> https://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/ref/rrefsqljoffsetfetch.html
>
> I'm accessing the database using the Derby Embedded driver.
>
> I have a table which contains some indexes as well as some fields and
> a BLOB field. The table is somewhat big (means many rows, ~13 GB).
>
> I'm using a query like this (timestamp has an index):
>
> SELECT * FROM history ORDER BY timestamp DESC FETCH FIRST 10 ROWS ONLY
>
> The query takes ages (about 27 minutes for that ~13 GB table) and I
> can see how Derby slowly fills up my harddisk.
>
> And a look in the "tmp" folder of the database shows several ".tmp" files.
>
> First I get several files having 10 MB, then I get two big files
> having 5 GB, then the 10 MB files are deleted, then the 5 GB files are
> deleted and finally I get the result.
>
> As I thought something is wrong with my application I also did the
> same query on the same database and table using SQuirreL v3.8.1. But
> the result is the same.
>
> I would have expected that the scheduler of Derby would first look at
> the timestamp column / index (which should be sorted), taking the
> first 10 values from there and
>
> finally reading the first 10 rows matching these values.
>
> Instead it seems that it first processes the " SELECT * FROM history"
> part (as memory is not sufficient it swaps it to the harddisk), orders
> it and takes the first 10 elements.
>
> Is that correct?
>
> And if that is correct, where is the benefit of FETCH FIRST - beside
> that maybe not that much data is transferred (maybe only interesting
> if you use Derby not by the Embedded Driver because of the TCP/IP
> connection)?
>
> Regards,
>
> Gerrit
>
Hi Gerrit,
Can you share table and index DDL for this problem as well as the query
plan which Derby chose for the query? See the section on "Working with
RunTimeStatistics" in the Derby Tuning Guide:
http://db.apache.org/derby/docs/10.14/tuning/index.html
It may be that Derby did not choose the index. That in turn, may have
happened for 2 reasons:
1) You're selecting all of the columns in the table and there is no
filtering WHERE clause. That reduces the likelihood that Derby will pick
an indexed access path since the optimizer sees this as a full table scan.
2) I don't think that any optimizer support was built for the FETCH
FIRST clause. That's worth filing a performance bug for. I think that
the FETCH FIRST clause is only applied at execution time in order to
short-circuit the number of rows which are returned.
Thanks,
-Rick