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

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete()
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdvK=9RubN9=p4iw9nksv2dxPsC5Sp_gVKJtuxC2dzxsTA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete()  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: POC: Lock updated tuples in tuple_update() and tuple_delete()
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: torikoshia
Date:
Subject: Re: POC PATCH: copy from ... exceptions to: (was Re: VLDB Features)
Next
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: Add pg_walinspect function with block info columns