[rid] Improve UpdateNotificationIdxsInCells by locking row in order - #1571
Merged
Conversation
This was referenced Jun 25, 2026
Contributor
|
Measurement with 60ms latency. v0.23.0-rc1 This PR We can observe an improvement in terms performance (QPS and response times). |
barroco
approved these changes
Jun 25, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When trying to use the latest monitoring image version - which includes a tougher test on RID - Yugabyte is unable to pass the test.
This PR implements improve the UpdateNotificationIdxsInCells by first locking row ordered by PK, limiting deadlock. This improve performance and, combined with others fixes make it passing.
See #1570 as well.
Performance on Cockroach is hard to determine since we don't have load test on RID.
Using a modified version of RID that insert a subscription show no changes (single node, no latency):