DB2 - Problem description
Problem IC87969 | Status: Closed |
EXECUTION OF SQL STATEMENT WITH DBPARTITIONNUM IS NOT PARALLELIZED WHEN USING TABLE OR LATERAL CONSTRUCT IN DPF | |
product: | |
DB2 FOR LUW / DB2FORLUW / A10 - DB2 | |
Problem description: | |
This issue only applies if you are using the database partitioning feature (DPF). SQL statements with an OLAP function that includes DBPARTITIONNUM in the partition by clause might not be parallelized when using the TABLE or LATERAL construct, executing on a single database partition in the partition group. For example, the following are two equivalent queries using LATERAL and TABLE with tmp(a,b,c) as (select a, row_number() over (partition by dbpartitionnum(t1.b)), c from T1) select v.a, v.b, v.c from tmp t1, lateral(values(t1.a, t1.b, t1.c), (t1.a, t1.b, t1.c+1)) as v(a,b,c); with tmp(a,b,c) as (select a, row_number() over (partition by dbpartitionnum(t1.b)), c from T1) select v.a, v.b, v.c from tmp t1, table(values(t1.a, t1.b, t1.c), (t1.a, t1.b, t1.c+1)) as v(a,b,c); If T1 is hash distributed across multiple database partitions, the optimizer might add a table queue to send the rows from T1 to the coordinator to complete the operation. | |
Problem Summary: | |
**************************************************************** * USERS AFFECTED: * * Users using the database partitioning feature (DPF) are * * affected. * **************************************************************** * PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: * * See Error Description * **************************************************************** * RECOMMENDATION: * * Upgrade to DB2 Version 10.1 Fix Pack 3. * **************************************************************** | |
Local Fix: | |
available fix packs: | |
DB2 Version 10.1 Fix Pack 3 for Linux, UNIX, and Windows | |
Solution | |
Problem first fixed in DB2 Version 10.1 Fix Pack 3. | |
Workaround | |
not known / see Local fix | |
Timestamps | |
Date - problem reported : Date - problem closed : Date - last modified : | 05.11.2012 27.09.2013 27.09.2013 |
Problem solved at the following versions (IBM BugInfos) | |
Problem solved according to the fixlist(s) of the following version(s) | |
10.1.0.3 | |
10.1.0.3 |