Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Hi, Pavel!

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:29 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Let's see the performance results for the patchset.  I'll properly
> > revise the comments if results will be good.
> >
> > Pavel, could you please re-run your tests over revised patchset?
>
> Since last time I've improved the test to avoid significant series
> differences due to AWS storage access variation that is seen in [1].
> I.e. each series of tests is run on a tmpfs with newly inited pgbench
> tables and vacuum. Also, I've added a test for low-concurrency updates
> where the locking optimization isn't expected to improve performance,
> just to make sure the patches don't make things worse.
>
> The tests are as follows:
> 1. Heap updates with high tuple concurrency:
> Prepare without pkeys (pgbench -d postgres -i -I dtGv -s 10 --unlogged-tables)
> Update tellers 100 rows, 50 conns ( pgbench postgres -f
> ./update-only-tellers.sql -s 10 -P10 -M prepared -T 600 -j 5 -c 50 )
>
> Result: Average of 5 series with patches (0001+0002) is around 5%
> faster than both master and patch 0001. Still, there are some
> fluctuations between different series of the measurements of the same
> patch, but much less than in [1]

Thank you for running this that fast!

So, it appears that 0001 patch has no effect.  So, we probably should
consider to drop 0001 patch and consider just 0002 patch.

The attached patch v12 contains v11 0002 patch extracted separately.
Please, add it to the performance comparison.  Thanks.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov