Hello PGSQL performance community,
[By way of introduction, we are a TPC subcommittee that is developing a 
benchmark with cloud-like characteristics for virtualized databases. The 
end-to-end benchmarking kit will be publicly available, and will run on PGSQL]

I am running into very high failure rates when I run with the Serializable 
Isolation Level. I have simplified our configuration to a single database with 
a constant workload, a TPC-E workload if you will, to focus on this this 
problem. We are running with PGSQL 9.2.4, ODBC 2.2.14 (as well as 2.3.3pre, 
which didn't help), RHEL 6.4, and a 6-way VM with 96GB of memory on a 4-socket 
Westmere server.

With our 9 transactions running with a mix of SQL_TXN_READ_COMMITTED and 
SQL_TXN_REPEATABLE_READ, we get less than 1% deadlocks, all of which occur 
because each row in one table, BROKER, may be read or written by multiple 
transactions at the same time. So, there are legitimate conflicts, which we 
deal with using an exponential backoff algorithm that sleeps for 
10ms/30ms/90ms/etc.

When we raise the Trade-Result transaction to SQL_TXN_SERIALIZABLE, we face a 
storm of conflicts. Out of 37,342 Trade-Result transactions, 15,707 hit an 
error, and have to be rolled back and retired one or more times. The total 
failure count (due to many transactions failing more than once) is 31,388.

What is unusual is that the majority of the failures occur in a statement that 
should not have any isolation conflicts. About 17K of failures are from the 
statement below:
2014-07-23 11:27:15 PDT 26085 ERROR:  could not serialize access due to 
read/write dependencies among transactions
2014-07-23 11:27:15 PDT 26085 DETAIL:  Reason code: Canceled on identification 
as a pivot, during write.
2014-07-23 11:27:15 PDT 26085 HINT:  The transaction might succeed if retried.
2014-07-23 11:27:15 PDT 26085 CONTEXT:  SQL statement "update   TRADE
                set     T_COMM = comm_amount,
                        T_DTS = trade_dts,
                        T_ST_ID = st_completed_id,
                        T_TRADE_PRICE = trade_price
                where   T_ID = trade_id"
        PL/pgSQL function traderesultframe5(ident_t,value_t,character,timestamp 
without time zone,trade_t,s_price_t) line 15 at SQL statement

This doesn't make sense since at any given time, only one transaction might 
possibly be accessing the row that is being updated. There should be no 
conflicts if we have row-level locking/isolation

The second most common conflict happens 7.6K times in the statement below:
2014-07-23 11:27:23 PDT 26039 ERROR:  could not serialize access due to 
read/write dependencies among transactions
2014-07-23 11:27:23 PDT 26039 DETAIL:  Reason code: Canceled on identification 
as a pivot, during conflict in checking.
2014-07-23 11:27:23 PDT 26039 HINT:  The transaction might succeed if retried.
2014-07-23 11:27:23 PDT 26039 CONTEXT:  SQL statement "insert
                into    SETTLEMENT (    SE_T_ID,
                                        SE_CASH_TYPE,
                                        SE_CASH_DUE_DATE,
                                        SE_AMT)
                values (        trade_id,
                                cash_type,
                                due_date,
                                se_amount
                        )"
        PL/pgSQL function traderesultframe6(ident_t,timestamp without time 
zone,character varying,value_t,timestamp without time 
zone,trade_t,smallint,s_qty_t,character) line 23 at SQL statement

I don't understand why an insert would hit a serialization conflict

We also have 4.5K conflicts when we try to commit:
2014-07-23 11:27:23 PDT 26037 ERROR:  could not serialize access due to 
read/write dependencies among transactions
2014-07-23 11:27:23 PDT 26037 DETAIL:  Reason code: Canceled on identification 
as a pivot, during commit attempt.
2014-07-23 11:27:23 PDT 26037 HINT:  The transaction might succeed if retried.
2014-07-23 11:27:23 PDT 26037 STATEMENT:  COMMIT


Does PGSQL raise locks to page level when we run with SQL_TXN_SERIALIZABLE? Are 
there any knobs I can play with to alleviate this?  FWIW, the same transactions 
on MS SQL Server see almost no conflicts.

Thanks,
Reza

Reply via email to