| From: | "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jesper Krogh" <jesper(at)krogh(dot)cc>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pessimal trivial-update performance |
| Date: | 2010-07-05 10:11:38 |
| Message-ID: | op.vfc7xobzeorkce@apollo13 |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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
On the Python side, elixir and sqlalchemy have an excellent way of
handling this, basically when you start a transaction, all changes are
accumulated in a "session" object and only flushed to the database on
session commit (which is also generally the transaction commit). This has
multiple advantages, for instance it is able to issue multiple-line
statements, updates are only done once, you save a lot of roundtrips, etc.
Of course it is most of the time not compatible with database triggers, so
if there are triggers the ORM needs to be told about them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jesper Krogh | 2010-07-05 10:26:23 | Re: pessimal trivial-update performance |
| Previous Message | Martin Pihlak | 2010-07-05 09:58:09 | Re: log files and permissions |