Re: Slow concurrent update of same row in a given table

On 9/29/05, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote:
>
> > > > Number of Copies | Update perl Sec
> > > >
> > > > 1 --> 119
> > > > 2 ---> 59
> > > > 3 ---> 38
> > > > 4 ---> 28
> > > > 5 --> 22
> > > > 6 --> 19
> > > > 7 --> 16
> > > > 8 --> 14
> > > > 9 --> 11
> > > > 10 --> 11
> > > > 11 --> 10
> > >
> > > So, 11 instances result in 10 updated rows per second, database wide or
> > > per instance? If it is per instance, then 11 * 10 is close to the
> > > performance for one connection.
> >
> >
> > Sorry do not understand the difference between "database wide"
> > and "per instance"
>
> Per instance.
>
> >
> > >
> > > That being said, when you've got 10 connections fighting over one row, I
> > > wouldn't be surprised if you had bad performance.
> > >
> > > Also, at 119 updates a second, you're more than doubling the table's
> > > initial size (dead tuples) each second. How often are you vacuuming and
> > > are you using vacuum or vacuum full?
> >
> >
> > Yes I realize the obvious phenomenon now, (and the uselessness of the script)
> > , we should not consider it a performance degradation.
> >
> > I am having performance issue in my live database thats why i tried to
> > simulate the situation(may the the script was overstresser).
> >
> > My original problem is that i send 100 000s of emails carrying a
> > beacon for tracking readership every tuesday and on wednesday i see
> > lot of the said query in pg_stat_activity each of these query update
> > the SAME row that corresponds to the dispatch of last day and it is
> > then i face the performance problem.
> >
> > I think i can only post further details next wednesday , please lemme
> > know how should i be dealing with the situation if each the updates takes
> > 100times more time that normal update duration.
>
> I see. These problems regularly come up in database design. The best thing
> you can do is modify your database design/application such that instead of
> incrementing a count in a single row, you insert a row into a table,
> recording the 'dispatch_id'. Counting the number of rows for a given
> dispatch id will give you your count.
>

sorry i will be accumulating huge amount of rows in seperate table
with no extra info when i really want just the count. Do you have
a better database design in mind?

Also i encounter same problem in implementing read count of
articles in sites and in counting banner impressions where same
row get updated by multiple processes frequently.

Thanks & Regds
mallah.

> Thanks,
>
> Gavin
>