Re: Interesting paper: Contention-Aware Lock Scheduling

From: Garym <garym(at)oedata(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Interesting paper: Contention-Aware Lock Scheduling
Date: 2018-04-13 18:02:15
Message-ID: 0939AF17-41E3-458A-A3D0-D4BD12E89829@oedata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I did testing on 9.6 and 10. Outside of slaves at distance, it does demonstrate consistent OOA operation whether intentional/enforced or not. :)

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 13, 2018, at 11:50 AM, Evgeniy Shishkin <itparanoia(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Apr 13, 2018, at 20:46, Garym <garym(at)oedata(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> AFAIK, we don't guarantee order of processing anyway. Just some order.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-04-13 18:08:30 Re: crash with sql language partition support function
Previous Message Evgeniy Shishkin 2018-04-13 17:50:38 Re: Interesting paper: Contention-Aware Lock Scheduling