From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 6JGHKzQbe18qUAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:10:12 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id sIZWJzQbe19oYwAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:10:12 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD11A9404C5 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:10:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:48318 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQFm-0005O1-AX for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:10:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42952) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQFe-0005Nh-Qe for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:10:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:36773) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQFe-0002bx-Gl for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:10:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQFe-0003Ws-BR for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:10:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#43564: cuirass: Contention while registering new builds. Resent-From: Mathieu Othacehe Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:10:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 43564 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 43564-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B43564.160190336313513 (code B ref 43564); Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:10:02 +0000 Received: (at 43564) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Oct 2020 13:09:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48318 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQEx-0003Vp-M1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:09:23 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:36002) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQEu-0003VZ-QI for 43564@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:09:18 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:58219) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQEo-0002YM-RW; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:09:10 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:19b:d9a0:4d1:e5e4:e52d:9d3f] (port=51590 helo=cervin) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQEl-0000jQ-QC; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:09:09 -0400 From: Mathieu Othacehe References: <87imc5zrc8.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0wee3ud.fsf@gnu.org> <87v9fo27vz.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 15:09:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87v9fo27vz.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?="'s message of "Mon, 05 Oct 2020 14:07:44 +0200") Message-ID: <87k0w47rbh.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 43564@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.51 X-TUID: EAijW3F75FcS Hey Ludo, > Isn=E2=80=99t that the real problem, that we=E2=80=99re doing one transac= tion per > derivation? Is it really better in term of performance to send batch of queries within a single transaction? I haven't tried it yet. I think that the real bottleneck was having N fibers fighting over 4 workers to execute large number of insertions. Having all those queries done by workers dedicated to registration in a single pass seems to improve a lot the situation. Maybe having those registration workers posting unique transactions containing all the queries would be even more beneficial. Thanks, Mathieu