Repository navigation
ClickHouse backend: v0.29.0 panics during flamegraph queries (arrow/array: index out of range) #6409
Description
Description
Parca v0.29.0 crashes when executing a merge flamegraph query against its ClickHouse backend. The server starts successfully and passes health probes, but querying existing, symbolized profiles terminates the process.
This reproduces through both Parca’s HTTP API and Grafana’s Parca datasource. We are using the official image without source modifications.
Environment
- Parca:
ghcr.io/parca-dev/parca:v0.29.0 - Commit:
b2956713c1f56d7dca98b9f3582ea59e84b8ace7 - Platform: Kubernetes, Linux/amd64
- ClickHouse:
26.8.10.6 - Backend: ClickHouse enabled; no Parca scraping or ingestion
Profiles are ingested separately into an OpenTelemetry profile table. Parca reads an ordinary SQL compatibility view exposing its expected ClickHouse schema, including populated function names and corresponding stacktrace arrays. This failure was observed with that view; we have not independently reproduced it using Parca’s own ingestion path.
Steps to reproduce
-
Start the official v0.29.0 image with the ClickHouse backend configured:
--clickhouse-enabled --clickhouse-address=<clickhouse-host>:9000 --clickhouse-database=profiling --clickhouse-table=parca_otel_profiles --clickhouse-username=<username> -
Ensure the configured table/view contains symbolized CPU samples.
-
Execute a merge query covering existing samples. Replace the timestamps and service selector as appropriate:
curl --get 'http://localhost:7070/api/profiles/query' \ --data-urlencode 'mode=MODE_MERGE' \ --data-urlencode 'merge.query=process_cpu:cpu:nanoseconds:cpu:nanoseconds:delta{service_name="java-profiles-app"}' \ --data-urlencode "merge.start=$START" \ --data-urlencode "merge.end=$END" \ --data-urlencode 'report_type=REPORT_TYPE_FLAMEGRAPH_ARROW'
Expected behavior
Parca returns the flamegraph response without terminating.
Actual behavior
The process panics and Kubernetes restarts the container. Repeated dashboard queries trigger repeated crashes.
Abbreviated stack trace:
panic: arrow/array: index out of range
github.com/apache/arrow-go/v18/arrow/array.NewSliceData(...)
arrow/array/data.go:232
github.com/apache/arrow-go/v18/arrow/array.(*Struct).setData(...)
arrow/array/struct.go:195
github.com/apache/arrow-go/v18/arrow/array.(*StructBuilder).NewStructArray(...)
arrow/array/struct.go:406
...
github.com/apache/arrow-go/v18/arrow/array.(*RecordBuilder).NewRecordBatch(...)
arrow/array/record.go:371
github.com/parca-dev/parca/pkg/clickhouse.(*Querier).rowsToArrowRecords(...)
pkg/clickhouse/querier.go:1069
github.com/parca-dev/parca/pkg/clickhouse.(*Querier).QueryMerge(...)
pkg/clickhouse/querier.go:661
AI Suspected cause
The Arrow profile writer includes a ColumnNumber builder. However, [rowsToArrowRecords](https://github.com/parca-dev/parca/blob/v0.29.0/pkg/clickhouse/querier.go#L1000) appends line numbers and function fields without appending ColumnNumber, in both the symbolized-location and stored-function branches.
QueryMerge()
→ execute SQL against ClickHouse
→ rowsToArrowRecords()
→ profile.NewWriter()
→ append returned samples and stack frames
→ RecordBuilder.NewRecordBatch()
→ subsequent flamegraph processing
Version comparison and workaround
- v0.29.0: runtime failure confirmed.
- v0.28.0, v0.27.1, v0.27.0: their ClickHouse querier and Arrow writer files are identical to v0.29.0. These versions were inspected, not separately runtime-tested.
- v0.26.0: works with the same ClickHouse view and data. All eight tested Java/Go CPU and memory combinations returned nonempty flamegraphs with totals matching direct ClickHouse queries.
v0.26.0 predates the ColumnNumber writer field and is our temporary workaround.
Could the ClickHouse-to-Arrow conversion ensure every line field is populated consistently, with a regression test covering symbolized samples and REPORT_TYPE_FLAMEGRAPH_ARROW queries?
Activity
thorfour commentedon Sep 28, 2026
Interesting report. If you have a patch you can share to fix this it would be appreciated. I'm uncertain of the teams bandwidth to get to this anytime soon ourselves.
jSherz commentedon Oct 12, 2026
I think this will be resolved by #6420.