apache / apache/iotdb

[Bug] Limiting memory does not degrade query latency

Aperta
#17,070 1 commento 0 reazioni 0 assegnatari Vedi su GitHub
Lingua principale
Java
Stelle
6.4k
Fork
1.2k
Merge medio
1g 23h
PR unite (30g)
115

Descrizione

### Search before asking

- [x] I searched in the [issues](https://github.com/apache/iotdb/issues) and found nothing similar.

### Version

1.1.3 and 1.3.4 (tested with standalone Docker image)

### Describe the bug and provide the minimal reproduce step

While testing IoTDB under limited memory configurations, using docker for that effect, it was found that the database's performance won't drop until the threshold of 4GB of memory is hit, despite it always using the maximum amount of memory allocated for the container.

It was expected that progressively constraining the database's available memory would lead to gradual performance degradation, but instead IoTDB maintains virtually identical query latency across the tested memory limits, despite always consuming the maximum amount of memory available to the container.

Minimal reprodution steps:

1. Launch IoTDB in standalone mode with constrained memory using Docker Compose
2. Preload data before executing queries
3. Execue a query workload, using the same for every memory configuration

The queries follow the following templates:
```sql
-- Aggregation
select agg_func(field) from path where time >= start and time <= end

-- Downsampling
select field from path group by ([start, end), step)

-- Outlier-filter
select field from path where time >= start and time <= end and field [>,>=,<,<=] threshold
```

Image

Image

### What did you expect to see?

Either performance degradation as memory limits get increasingly smaller, or the container not using all the memory available to it, if it is able to maintain performance with less memory usage.

### What did you see instead?

Performance didn't degrade until the 4GB memory limit, remaining similar regardless of the limit used, despite the database always using the maximum memory allocated to it.

### Anything else?

The tests were run using [MulletBench](https://github.com/pedropereira98/MulletBench/tree/main), as well as plot generation.

### Are you willing to submit a PR?

- [ ] I'm willing to submit a PR!

Guida per i contributori

Apri la guida per i contributori

Direzione di ricerca

Inizia riproducendo il workload segnalato di MulletBench utilizzando le configurazioni di memoria di Docker Compose descritte nell’issue e confronta la latenza delle query con l’utilizzo di memoria del container. Traccia il comportamento del database responsabile della latenza invariata tra i limiti; il lavoro è concluso quando la causa è stata identificata e una correzione è stata convalidata sui workload di aggregazione, downsampling e filtro degli outlier.

Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.

Valutazione

Stack tecnologico
docker, java, sql
Ambito
databases, performance
Tipo di issue
Bug
Difficoltà
4/5
Tempo stimato
3-5 giorni
Stato di attività
Ferma
Chiarezza
Da chiarire
Idoneità per principianti
35/100

Ricevi le nuove issue nella tua casella

Un breve riepilogo di issue GitHub adatte ai principianti.