[erlang-questions] mnesia lookup weirdness
Thu Jul 14 11:36:12 CEST 2011
I have to confess...
ets:first is not supposed to behave like that, returning already deleted
even if the table is fixated. You can of course have a race with a
but the key should have existed in the table some time during the
execution of ets:first().
I think you suffer from this bug, fixed in R13B01:
OTP-8040 Various fixes in ETS: ets:first could return a deleted key in
a fixated table. ets:lookup could return objects out of order
if a deleted object was re-inserted into a fixed bag.
ets:delete_object could fail to delete duplicate objects in a
The irony being that you probably wouldn't had found the bug of
the leaking ets:safe_fixtable now if ets:first had behaved like it should.
Leaking ets:safe_fixtable can be a nasty thing as it might result in
gradual performance degradation,
both memory and cpu wise. Deleted objects are not deallocated and the
table is not allowed
to adjust its size (rehash) until it is "unfixated".
> For the record, I've found out what was causing this.
> A process was regularly executing ets:safe_fixtable(true) on this table, and
> not finishing off with ets:safe_fixtable(false).
> This meant that the behaviour of mnesia:dirty_first was affected, and was
> also causing increased memory consumption.
> Thanks to Håkan and Sverker for helping me find the root cause.
> On 1 July 2011 14:44, Chandru <chandrashekhar.mullaparthi@REDACTED> wrote:
>> One of my production nodes running R12B-5 is exhibiting some strange
>> mnesia:dirty_read(gtp_tid, mnesia:dirty_first(gtp_tid)).
>> gives me an empty list. The table has 39K entries. How do I find out what
>> is happening? I tried using ets operations directly and get the same result
>> (which is what mnesia is doing behind the scenes anyway). I get the same
>> empty result using a transaction to read. Any clues?
>> 96> ets:info(gtp_tid).
>> The same operation works ok on other tables.
More information about the erlang-questions