Skip to content

Comments

docs#14

Open
gropaul wants to merge 1 commit intojoin-optimization/hash-markerfrom
join-optimization/hash-marker-and-collision-bit
Open

docs#14
gropaul wants to merge 1 commit intojoin-optimization/hash-markerfrom
join-optimization/hash-marker-and-collision-bit

Conversation

@gropaul
Copy link
Owner

@gropaul gropaul commented Feb 15, 2025

No description provided.

gropaul pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 18, 2025
We had two users crash with the following backtrace:

```
    frame #0: 0x0000ffffab2571ec
    frame #1: 0x0000aaaaac00c5fc duckling`duckdb::InternalException::InternalException(this=<unavailable>, msg=<unavailable>) at exception.cpp:328:2
    frame #2: 0x0000aaaaac1ee418 duckling`duckdb::optional_ptr<duckdb::OptimisticDataWriter, true>::CheckValid(this=<unavailable>) const at optional_ptr.hpp:34:11
    frame #3: 0x0000aaaaac1eea8c duckling`duckdb::MergeCollectionTask::Execute(duckdb::PhysicalBatchInsert const&, duckdb::ClientContext&, duckdb::GlobalSinkState&, duckdb::LocalSinkState&) [inlined] duckdb::optional_ptr<duckdb::OptimisticDataWriter, true>::operator*(this=<unavailable>) at optional_ptr.hpp:43:3
    frame #4: 0x0000aaaaac1eea84 duckling`duckdb::MergeCollectionTask::Execute(this=0x0000aaaaf1b06150, op=<unavailable>, context=0x0000aaaba820d8d0, gstate_p=0x0000aaab06880f00, lstate_p=<unavailable>) at physical_batch_insert.cpp:219:90
    frame #5: 0x0000aaaaac1d2e10 duckling`duckdb::PhysicalBatchInsert::Sink(duckdb::ExecutionContext&, duckdb::DataChunk&, duckdb::OperatorSinkInput&) const [inlined] duckdb::PhysicalBatchInsert::ExecuteTask(this=0x0000aaaafa62ab40, context=<unavailable>, gstate_p=0x0000aaab06880f00, lstate_p=0x0000aab12d442960) const at physical_batch_insert.cpp:425:8
    frame #6: 0x0000aaaaac1d2dd8 duckling`duckdb::PhysicalBatchInsert::Sink(duckdb::ExecutionContext&, duckdb::DataChunk&, duckdb::OperatorSinkInput&) const [inlined] duckdb::PhysicalBatchInsert::ExecuteTasks(this=0x0000aaaafa62ab40, context=<unavailable>, gstate_p=0x0000aaab06880f00, lstate_p=0x0000aab12d442960) const at physical_batch_insert.cpp:431:9
    frame #7: 0x0000aaaaac1d2dd8 duckling`duckdb::PhysicalBatchInsert::Sink(this=0x0000aaaafa62ab40, context=0x0000aab2fffd7cb0, chunk=<unavailable>, input=<unavailable>) const at physical_batch_insert.cpp:494:4
    frame #8: 0x0000aaaaac353158 duckling`duckdb::PipelineExecutor::ExecutePushInternal(duckdb::DataChunk&, duckdb::ExecutionBudget&, unsigned long) [inlined] duckdb::PipelineExecutor::Sink(this=0x0000aab2fffd7c00, chunk=0x0000aab2fffd7d30, input=0x0000fffec0aba8d8) at pipeline_executor.cpp:521:24
    frame #9: 0x0000aaaaac353130 duckling`duckdb::PipelineExecutor::ExecutePushInternal(this=0x0000aab2fffd7c00, input=0x0000aab2fffd7d30, chunk_budget=0x0000fffec0aba980, initial_idx=0) at pipeline_executor.cpp:332:23
    frame #10: 0x0000aaaaac34f7b4 duckling`duckdb::PipelineExecutor::Execute(this=0x0000aab2fffd7c00, max_chunks=<unavailable>) at pipeline_executor.cpp:201:13
    frame #11: 0x0000aaaaac34f258 duckling`duckdb::PipelineTask::ExecuteTask(duckdb::TaskExecutionMode) [inlined] duckdb::PipelineExecutor::Execute(this=<unavailable>) at pipeline_executor.cpp:278:9
    frame #12: 0x0000aaaaac34f250 duckling`duckdb::PipelineTask::ExecuteTask(this=0x0000aab16dafd630, mode=<unavailable>) at pipeline.cpp:51:33
    frame #13: 0x0000aaaaac348298 duckling`duckdb::ExecutorTask::Execute(this=0x0000aab16dafd630, mode=<unavailable>) at executor_task.cpp:49:11
    frame #14: 0x0000aaaaac356600 duckling`duckdb::TaskScheduler::ExecuteForever(this=0x0000aaaaf0105560, marker=0x0000aaaaf00ee578) at task_scheduler.cpp:189:32
    frame #15: 0x0000ffffab0a31fc
    frame #16: 0x0000ffffab2ad5c8
```

Core dump analysis showed that the assertion `D_ASSERT(lstate.writer);`
in `MergeCollectionTask::Execute` (i.e. it is crashing because
`lstate.writer` is NULLPTR) was not satisfied when
`PhysicalBatchInsert::Sink` was processing merge tasks from (other)
pipeline executors.

My suspicion is that this is only likely to happen for heavily
concurrent workloads (applicable to the two users which crashed). The
patch submitted as part of this PR has addressed the issue for these
users.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant