In fact this test shows 3 problems: 1. Bad scalabity even with embedded server: H2 can't use more then 10% of PU due to locking 2. Slow TCP exchange even with localhost 3. Degradation of TCP server performance, probably due to a leak
I would very appreciate your input for each of the problems My final goal - 2000 tps with TCP server. Each transaction includes approx. 10 inserts, 10 updates by primary key, 50 short selects. Database size >1TB. CPU cores are not limited, we can have 30-100 cores Do you think it is achivable? Do you have such experience? On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 7:41:34 PM UTC, Noel Grandin wrote: > > thanks. > > looks like we are bottlenecking on the locking on the undoLog object in > TransactionStore, particularly in the commit() method. > > I see a comment there > // TODO could synchronize on blocks (100 at a time or so) > which means perhaps Thomas had some ideas how this could be improved. > > Bit late here now, will thank about this more tomorrow. > > Still don't understand why the TCP server is so much slower than direct, > but perhaps it's a combined latenct thingof the locking and the socket > connection limiting the throughput? > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/h2-database. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
