From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query |
Date: | 2019-03-03 21:17:53 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJKz8cLiy3_JWXJM=LXJmYoWEJn_D+i00jRJgoeb=NSHQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:15 AM Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> It applies and builds clean, it passed make world with cassert and TAP
> tests, and I can't see any remaining flaws. This is true both of just
> the 0001 v16 patch and that with 0002 v16 applied on top of it.
Thanks. I'd like to commit this soon.
> It would be great if someone with a big test machine could stress test
> and benchmark this versus current production versions.
Hmm. I can't compare it with current production versions directly
since SERIALIZABLE + parallel query wasn't possible before. I could
compare it against lower isolation levels or non-parallel query, but
those tests don't seem to tell us anything we don't already know:
SERIALIZABLE slows some stuff down, parallel query speeds some stuff
up. As for stress-testing, most benchmarks are either good for testing
parallelism (TPC-H etc) but don't do any writes, or good for testing
writes (TPC-B etc) but don't do any parallelism. I'm going to
experiment with the "SIBENCH" approach from the Cahill paper and see
where that leads.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2019-03-03 21:48:33 | Re: psql show URL with help |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2019-03-03 20:57:25 | Re: psql show URL with help |