On 25/07/2014 2:58 PM, Reza Taheri wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
>> According to the attached SQL, each frame is a separate phase in the operation and performs many different
operations.
>> There's a *lot* going on here, so identifying possible interdependencies isn't something I can do in a ten minute
skim
>> read over my morning coffee.
> You didn't think I was going to bug you all with a trivial problem, did you? :-) :-)
>
> Yes, I am going to have to take an axe to the code and see what pops out. Just to put this in perspective, the
transactionflow and its statements are borrowed verbatim from the TPC-E benchmark. There have been dozens of TPC-E
disclosureswith MS SQL Server, and there are Oracle and DB2 kits that, although not used in public disclosures for
variousnon-technical reasons, are used internally in by the DB and server companies. These 3 products, and perhaps
more,were used extensively in the prototyping phase of TPC-E.
>
> So, my hope is that if there is a "previously unidentified interdependency between transactions" as you point out, it
willbe due to a mistake we made in coding this for PGSQL. Otherwise, we will have a hard time convincing all the
councilmember companies that we need to change the schema or the business logic to make the kit work with PGSQL.
>
> Just pointing out my uphill battle!!
You might compare against dbt-5 [1], just to see if the same problem
occurs. I didn't notice such high abort rates when I ran that workload a
few weeks ago. Just make sure to use the latest commit, because the
"released" version has fatal bugs.
[1] https://github.com/petergeoghegan/dbt5
Ryan