On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 2:12 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > Workload C. DDL is happening on publication but on unrelated table > ============================================ > We did not run the workload because we expected this could be same results as > D. > 588acf6 is needed to optimize the workload. > > ----- > > Workload D. DDL is happening on the related published table, > and one insert is done per invalidation > ========================================= > This workload had huge regression same as the master branch. This is expected > because distributed invalidation messages require all concurrent transactions > to rebuild relsync caches. > > Concurrent txn | Head (sec) | Patch (sec) | Degradation (%) > ------------------ | ------------ | ------------ | ---------------- > 50 | 0.013496 | 0.015588 | 15.5034 > 100 | 0.015112 | 0.018868 | 24.8517 > 500 | 0.018483 | 0.038714 | 109.4536 > 1000 | 0.023402 | 0.063735 | 172.3524 > 2000 | 0.031596 | 0.110860 | 250.8720 >
IIUC, workloads C and D will have regression in back branches, and HEAD will have regression only for workload D. We have avoided workload C regression in HEAD via commits 7c99dc587a and 3abe9dc188. We can backpatch those commits if required, but I think it is better not to do those as scenarios C and D won't be that common, and we should go ahead with the fix as it is. In the future, if we get any way to avoid regression due to scenario-D, then we can do that for the HEAD branch. Thoughts? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
