List:Falcon Storage Engine« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Jim Starkey Date:July 14 2009 7:13pm
Subject:Gold Star for Lars
View as plain text  
A gold star for Lars!


Lars-Erik Bjørk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have looked at bug#46083 (falcon_pagesize2K fails in 
> IndexRootPage::addIndexEntry() during recovery) today, and I have 
> debugged the relevant parts using the log and tablespace files 
> provided by Olav.
>
> This is what seems to happen:
>
> We try to add a node in IndexRootPage::addIndexEntry. Here is a piece 
> of the code:
>
> <snip>
>
> /* If the node fits on page, we're done */
>
> AddNodeResult result;
>
> for (;;)
>    {
>    result = page->addNode(dbb, key, recordNumber);
> <snip>
>
> The node does not fit on the page, and we are told to split the page 
> at the middle.
>
> In IndexPage::splitIndexPageMiddle, we search for a node to split on. 
> We want to chose a node
> where the prefix compression is poor.
>
> <snip>
> for (; node.node < pageEnd; node.getNext(bucketEnd))
>    {
>    //int l =
>    node.expandKey(key);
>
>    if (node.offset || node.length)
>        {
>        if (node.nextNode > midpoint)
>            break;
>
>        chain = node.node;
>        }
>
>    }
> <snip>
>
>
> Then we check to make sure that this is not the last node on the page, 
> and if it is, we split on the previous node (prevNode)
> (I sent a mail about the calculation of the previous node some weeks 
> ago, unrelated to this):
>
>    // The split node should never be the last node on the page
>      if ((UCHAR*) node.nextNode > (UCHAR*) this + length)
>        node = prevNode;
>
> What I see in the debugger is that (UCHAR*) node.nextNode == (UCHAR*) 
> this + length (note *equal*). To my understanding, this *is* the last 
> node on the page, and the condition should have been '>=' instead of 
> just '>'. This means that we in this case split on the last node 
> instead of the second to last node. On the next iteration we will 
> navigate to this page once again, and try to insert into it. This page 
> is still full (same length as the last time, we split on the 
> END_BUCKET node I assume), and we will split it again. This goes on 
> ... and on (I have looped through 14 of the iterations).
>
> If I change this condition from '>' to '>=' and also actually update 
> prevNode in the loop showed earlier, so that it does not refer to the 
> first node on the page, the node will be inserted on the second 
> iteration, after the first split. The recovery still segfaults, but on 
> a different place that I have no knowledge of, further down the 
> recovery process :)
>
> Does this sound like a plausible theory?
>
> /Lars-Erik
>
>
>
>


-- 
Jim Starkey
President, NimbusDB, Inc.
978 526-1376

Thread
Possible reason for the eternal loop in addIndexEntry?Lars-Erik Bjørk14 Jul
  • Re: Possible reason for the eternal loop in addIndexEntry?Kevin Lewis14 Jul
  • Gold Star for LarsJim Starkey14 Jul
    • Re: Gold Star for LarsLars-Erik Bjørk15 Jul
Re: Possible reason for the eternal loop in addIndexEntry?Lars-Erik Bjørk16 Jul