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 transaction flow and its statements are
borrowed verbatim from the TPC-E benchmark. There have been dozens of TPC-E
disclosures with MS SQL Server, and there are Oracle and DB2 kits that,
although not used in public disclosures for various non-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 will be due to a mistake we made in coding this
for PGSQL. Otherwise, we will have a hard time convincing all the council member
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
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
