List:Falcon Storage Engine« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Kevin Lewis Date:May 4 2009 1:14pm
Subject:Re: Corrupt indexes?
View as plain text  

These indexes are designed to contain multiple entries for the same record, but for
multiple record versions.  It sounds like within the same key value, a record number is
found twice and the record numbers are not in order.  I think that is a mistake.  Once
that happens, the key value would not be found in the call to deleteIndexEntry() during
garbage collection of old versions.  And if the same record number got that key value
again, a second entry would be added (in the right place this time).


Lars-Erik Bjørk wrote:
> Hi all!
> Sometimes we get too many rows returned when doing LIMIT queries. F.ex 
> my previous RQG run says:
> SELECT * FROM `E` WHERE `int_key` < 5 returns different result when 
> executed with predicate 'ORDER BY `int_key` LIMIT 1073741824' (1000 vs. 
> 1459 rows)
> The tables has 1000 rows.
> In IndexWalker::getValidatedRecord, I have added debug printouts, the 
> recordNumber and the pageNumber whenever we return a  valid record. For 
> the previous example, there are plenty of index pages used, but only the 
> three first of them contains valid nodes.
> The three first pages are page 154, 136, 213 (in that order).
> All the nodes returned as valid from pages 154 and 213 match with the 
> duplicate rows returned. Page 136 contains valid nodes for all 1000 
> records in the table.
> This leads me to believe that our index is fishy. Some of the nodes have 
> two entries in the index, and these two entries are not even adjacent ...
> I assume that if this is the case, we would not notice it during a 
> regular index search (not using LIMIT), because this would only result 
> in the same bit in the bitmap being set twice, during the scan phase. I 
> tried to test this by adding the following to IndexRootPage::scanIndex
>            ASSERT (!bitmap->isSet(number));  // Added this
>            bitmap->set (number);
> And this asserted during the test.
> Does this mean anything? Or are there valid conditions where this assert 
> may happen? I think this looks suspect.
> Best,
> Lars-Erik
Corrupt indexes?Lars-Erik Bjørk4 May
  • Re: Corrupt indexes?Kevin Lewis4 May
  • Re: Corrupt indexes?Ann W. Harrison4 May
    • Re: Corrupt indexes?Lars-Erik Bjørk5 May
      • Re: Corrupt indexes?Lars-Erik Bjørk5 May
        • Re: Corrupt indexes?Lars-Erik Bjørk5 May
      • Re: Corrupt indexes?Ann W. Harrison5 May