1. 22 Aug, 2007 1 commit
    • malff/marcsql@weblab.(none)'s avatar
      Bug#30237 (Performance regression in boolean expressions) · 82f99c93
      malff/marcsql@weblab.(none) authored
      This is a performance bug, related to the parsing or 'OR' and 'AND' boolean
      expressions.
      
      Let N be the number of expressions involved in a OR (respectively AND).
      
      When N=1
      
      For example, "select 1" involve only 1 term: there is no OR operator.
      
      In 4.0 and 4.1, parsing expressions not involving OR had no overhead.
      In 5.0, parsing adds some overhead, with Select->expr_list.
      
      With this patch, the overhead introduced in 5.0 has been removed,
      so that performances for N=1 should be identical to the 4.0 performances,
      which are optimal (there is no code executed at all)
      
      The overhead in 5.0 was in fact affecting significantly some operations.
      For example, loading 1 Million rows into a table with INSERTs,
      for a table that has 100 columns, leads to parsing 100 Millions of
      expressions, which means that the overhead related to Select->expr_list
      is executed 100 Million times ...
      
      Considering that N=1 is by far the most probable expression,
      this case should be optimal.
      
      When N=2
      
      For example, "select a OR b" involves 2 terms in the OR operator.
      
      In 4.0 and 4.1, parsing expressions involving 2 terms created 1 Item_cond_or
      node, which is the expected result.
      In 5.0, parsing these expression also produced 1 node, but with some extra
      overhead related to Select->expr_list : creating 1 list in Select->expr_list
      and another in Item_cond::list is inefficient.
      
      With this patch, the overhead introduced in 5.0 has been removed
      so that performances for N=2 should be identical to the 4.0 performances.
      Note that the memory allocation uses the new (thd->mem_root) syntax
      directly.
      The cost of "is_cond_or" is estimated to be neglectable: the real problem
      of the performance degradation comes from unneeded memory allocations.
      
      When N>=3
      
      For example, "select a OR b OR c ...", which involves 3 or more terms.
      
      In 4.0 and 4.1, the parser had no significant cost overhead, but produced
      an Item tree which is difficult to evaluate / optimize during runtime.
      In 5.0, the parser produces a better Item tree, using the Item_cond
      constructor that accepts a list of children directly, but at an extra cost
      related to Select->expr_list.
      
      With this patch, the code is implemented to take the best of the two
      implementations:
      - there is no overhead with Select->expr_list
      - the Item tree generated is optimized and flattened.
      
      This is achieved by adding children nodes into the Item tree directly,
      with Item_cond::add(), which avoids the need for temporary lists and memory
      allocation
      
      Note that this patch also provide an extra optimization, that the previous
      code in 5.0 did not provide: expressions are flattened in the Item tree,
      based on what the expression already parsed is, and not based on the order
      in which rules are reduced.
      
      For example : "(a OR b) OR c", "a OR (b OR c)" would both be represented
      with 2 Item_cond_or nodes before this patch, and with 1 node only with this
      patch. The logic used is based on the mathematical properties of the OR
      operator (it's associative), and produces a simpler tree.
      82f99c93
  2. 06 Aug, 2007 2 commits
  3. 05 Aug, 2007 1 commit
    • dlenev@mockturtle.local's avatar
      Fix for bug #21281 "Pending write lock is incorrectly removed when its · a43431b3
      dlenev@mockturtle.local authored
      statement being KILLed".
      
      When statement which was trying to obtain write lock on then table and
      which was blocked by existing read lock was killed, concurrent statements
      that were trying to obtain read locks on the same table and that were
      blocked by the presence of this pending write lock were not woken up and
      had to wait until this first read lock goes away.
      
      This problem was caused by the fact that we forgot to wake up threads
      which pending requests could have been satisfied after removing lock
      request for the killed thread.
      
      The patch solves the problem by waking up those threads in such situation.
      
      Test for this bug will be added to 5.1 only as it has much better
      facilities for its implementation. Particularly, by using I_S.PROCESSLIST
      and wait_condition.inc script we can wait until thread will be blocked on
      certain table lock without relying on unconditional sleep (which usage
      increases time needed for test runs and might cause spurious test
      failures on slower platforms).
      a43431b3
  4. 01 Aug, 2007 2 commits
  5. 31 Jul, 2007 1 commit
  6. 30 Jul, 2007 1 commit
  7. 29 Jul, 2007 1 commit
  8. 27 Jul, 2007 5 commits
    • thek@adventure.(none)'s avatar
      Merge adventure.(none):/home/thek/Development/cpp/bug29929/my50-bug29929 · 8f5fad2c
      thek@adventure.(none) authored
      into  adventure.(none):/home/thek/Development/cpp/mysql-5.0-runtime
      8f5fad2c
    • thek@adventure.(none)'s avatar
      Bug #29929 LOCK TABLES does not pre-lock tables used in triggers of the locked tables · 889b4ebc
      thek@adventure.(none) authored
      When a table was explicitly locked with LOCK TABLES no associated
      tables from any related trigger on the subject table were locked.
      As a result of this the user could experience unexpected locking
      behavior and statement failures similar to "failed: 1100: Table'xx'
      was not locked with LOCK TABLES".
      
      This patch fixes this problem by making sure triggers are
      pre-loaded on any statement if the subject table was explicitly
      locked with LOCK TABLES.
      889b4ebc
    • kostja@bodhi.(none)'s avatar
      A fix and a test case for Bug#24918 drop table and lock / inconsistent · 11c57540
      kostja@bodhi.(none) authored
      between perm and temp tables. Review fixes.
      
      The original bug report complains that if we locked a temporary table
      with LOCK TABLES statement, we would not leave LOCK TABLES mode
      when this temporary table is dropped.
      
      Additionally, the bug was escalated when it was discovered than
      when a temporary transactional table that was previously
      locked with LOCK TABLES statement was dropped, futher actions with
      this table, such as UNLOCK TABLES, would lead to a crash.
      
      The problem originates from incomplete support of transactional temporary
      tables. When we added calls to handler::store_lock()/handler::external_lock()
      to operations that work with such tables, we only covered the normal
      server code flow and did not cover LOCK TABLES mode. 
      In LOCK TABLES mode, ::external_lock(LOCK) would sometimes be called without
      matching ::external_lock(UNLOCK), e.g. when a transactional temporary table
      was dropped. Additionally, this table would be left in the list of LOCKed 
      TABLES.
      
      The patch aims to address this inadequacy. Now, whenever an instance
      of 'handler' is destroyed, we assert that it was priorly
      external_lock(UNLOCK)-ed. All the places that violate this assert
      were fixed.
      
      This patch introduces no changes in behavior -- the discrepancy in
      behavior will be fixed when we start calling ::store_lock()/::external_lock()
      for all tables, regardless whether they are transactional or not, 
      temporary or not.
      11c57540
    • svoj@june.mysql.com's avatar
      Merge svojtovich@bk-internal.mysql.com:/home/bk/mysql-5.0-engines · 81905ee1
      svoj@june.mysql.com authored
      into  mysql.com:/home/svoj/devel/mysql/BUG29957/mysql-5.0-engines
      81905ee1
    • svoj@mysql.com/june.mysql.com's avatar
      BUG#29957 - alter_table.test fails · 9d1bfec2
      svoj@mysql.com/june.mysql.com authored
      INSERT/DELETE/UPDATE followed by ALTER TABLE within LOCK TABLES
      may cause table corruption on Windows.
      
      That happens because ALTER TABLE writes outdated shared state
      info into index file.
      
      Fixed by removing obsolete workaround.
      
      Affects MyISAM tables on Windows only.
      9d1bfec2
  9. 26 Jul, 2007 2 commits
  10. 25 Jul, 2007 6 commits
  11. 24 Jul, 2007 6 commits
  12. 23 Jul, 2007 5 commits
  13. 22 Jul, 2007 5 commits
  14. 21 Jul, 2007 2 commits