Re: Built-in connection pooling

From: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Built-in connection pooling
Date: 2018-02-01 13:33:42
Message-ID: CAB=Je-G3S7O69nmsxFdsFRLi9dFFb5Jyrv7Xg-dgR5A0__3fQg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Konstantin>I have not built YCSB myself, use existed installation.

Which pgjdbc version was in use?

Konstantin>One of the main problems of Postgres is significant degrade of
performance in case of concurrent write access by multiple transactions to
the same sows.

I would consider that a workload "problem" rather than PostgreSQL problem.
That is, if an application (e.g. YCSB) is trying to update the same rows in
multiple transactions concurrently, then the outcome of such updates is
likely to be unpredictable. Does it make sense?

At least, I do not see why Mongo would degrade in a different way there.
Oleg's charts suggest that Mongo does not degrade there, so I wonder if we
compare apples to apples in the first place.

Vladimir

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2018-02-01 13:38:57 Re: proposal: alternative psql commands quit and exit
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2018-02-01 13:32:59 Re: proposal: alternative psql commands quit and exit