LDFS does show improvements for certain workloads, however it sacrifices temporal order and may interfere with historical analytics. If applications can tolerate ambiguous order of processing, it shows good gains.
Hi hackers,
I saw this today: http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol11/p648-tian.pdf
It describes the "LDSF" (largest-dependency-set-first) lock scheduling
algorithm and related work, as an alternative to the FIFO scheduling
used by PostgreSQL and most other RDBMSs. LDSF been implemented in
MySQL 8. The TPC-C results shown are impressive.
Yet another another interesting article http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dna/papers/orthrus-sigmod16.pdf with completely different approach: they deprive executors from obtaining locks themselves and move all concurrency control to some special workers, with which executors are communicated using message-passing.
