LDFS does show improvements for certain workloads, however it sacrifices 
temporal order and may interfere with historical analytics. If applications can 
tolerate ambiguous order of processing, it shows good gains. 

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 13, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizh...@postgrespro.ru> 
> wrote:
>> On 31.01.2018 22:48, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Hi hackers,
>> I saw this today: http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol11/p648-tian.pdf
>> It describes the "LDSF" (largest-dependency-set-first) lock scheduling
>> algorithm and related work, as an alternative to the FIFO scheduling
>> used by PostgreSQL and most other RDBMSs.  LDSF been implemented in
>> MySQL 8.  The TPC-C results shown are impressive.
> Yet another another interesting article  
> http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dna/papers/orthrus-sigmod16.pdf
> with completely different approach: they deprive executors from obtaining 
> locks themselves and move all concurrency control to some special workers,
> with which executors are communicated using message-passing.
> -- 
> Konstantin Knizhnik
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> The Russian Postgres Company 

Reply via email to