Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoYSKdPejVr7PYcEgGqzG++guMZpS6ieGTBf68DwnYgL4w@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweightlock manager  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы RE: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager  ("Alex Ignatov" <a.ignatov@postgrespro.ru>)
Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> I think the real question is whether the scenario is common enough to
>> worry about.  In practice, you'd have to be extremely unlucky to be
>> doing many bulk loads at the same time that all happened to hash to
>> the same bucket.
>
> With a bunch of parallel bulkloads into partitioned tables that really
> doesn't seem that unlikely?

It increases the likelihood of collisions, but probably decreases the
number of cases where the contention gets really bad.

For example, suppose each table has 100 partitions and you are
bulk-loading 10 of them at a time.  It's virtually certain that you
will have some collisions, but the amount of contention within each
bucket will remain fairly low because each backend spends only 1% of
its time in the bucket corresponding to any given partition.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: XML/XPath issues: text/CDATA in XMLTABLE, XPath evaluated withwrong context
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Transform for pl/perl