On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > So I re-ran the same old benchmark, where we're almost exclusively > updating. Results for your latest revision were very similar to my > patch: > > http://postgres-benchmarks.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/exclusion-no-deadlock/
To put that in context, here is a previously unpublished repeat of the same benchmark on the slightly improved second most recently submitted revision of mine, v6: http://postgres-benchmarks.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/upsert-cmp-3/ (recall that I improved things a bit by remember row-locking conflicts, not just conflicts when we try value locking - that made a small additional difference, reflected here but not in /upsert-cmp-2/ ). The numbers for each patch are virtually identical. I guess I could improve my patch by not always getting a heavyweight lock on the first insert attempt, based on the general observation that we have previously always updated. My concern would be that that would happen at the expense of the other case. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
