Re: pessimal trivial-update performance
Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
From: Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2010-07-05T09:56:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 2010-07-04 06:11, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > >> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION update_tab() RETURNS void AS $$ >> BEGIN >> INSERT INTO tab VALUES (0); >> FOR i IN 1..100000 LOOP >> UPDATE tab SET x = x + 1; >> END LOOP; >> END >> $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; >> > I believe that none of the dead row versions can be vacuumed during this > test. So yes, it sucks, but is it representative of real-world cases? > > The problem can generally be written as "tuples seeing multiple updates in the same transaction"? I think that every time PostgreSQL is used with an ORM, there is a certain amount of multiple updates taking place. I have actually been reworking clientside to get around multiple updates, since they popped up in one of my profiling runs. Allthough the time I optimized away ended being both "roundtrip time" + "update time", but having the database do half of it transparently, might have been sufficient to get me to have had a bigger problem elsewhere.. To sum up. Yes I think indeed it is a real-world case. Jesper -- Jesper