Dear Tomas, > > I did also performance tests (especially case 3). First of all, there are > > some > > variants from yours. > > > > 1. patch 0002 was reverted because it has an issue. So this test checks > > whether > > refactoring around ReorderBufferSequenceIsTransactional seems really > needed. > > FWIW I also did the benchmarks without the 0002 patch, for the same > reason. I forgot to mention that.
Oh, good news. So your bench markings are quite meaningful. > > Interesting, so what exactly does the transaction do? It is quite simple - PSA the script file. It was executed with 64 multiplicity. The definition of alter_sequence() is same as you said. (I did use normal bash script for running them, but your approach may be smarter) > Anyway, I don't > think this is very surprising - I believe it behaves like this because > of having to search in many hash tables (one in each toplevel xact). And > I think the solution I explained before (maintaining a single toplevel > hash, instead of many per-top-level hashes). Agreed. And I can benchmark again for new ones, maybe when we decide new approach. Best Regards, Hayato Kuroda FUJITSU LIMITED
one_client.sh
Description: one_client.sh
