Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete()
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdvK=9RubN9=p4iw9nksv2dxPsC5Sp_gVKJtuxC2dzxsTA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete() (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 4:50 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2023-03-02 14:28:56 +0400, Pavel Borisov wrote: > > 2. Heap updates with low tuple concurrency: > > Prepare with pkeys (pgbench -d postgres -i -I dtGvp -s 300 --unlogged-tables) > > Update 3*10^7 rows, 50 conns (pgbench postgres -f > > ./update-only-account.sql -s 300 -P10 -M prepared -T 600 -j 5 -c 50) > > > > Result: Both patches and master are the same within a tolerance of > > less than 0.7%. > > What exactly does that mean? I would definitely not want to accept a 0.7% > regression of the uncontended case to benefit the contended case here... I don't know what exactly Pavel meant, but average overall numbers for low concurrency are. master: 420401 (stddev of average 233) patchset v11: 420111 (stddev of average 199) The difference is less than 0.1% and that is very safely within the error. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: