[SERVER-14568] Better locking when using MVCC storage engines Created: 15/Jul/14 Updated: 06/Dec/22 Resolved: 01/Apr/19 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Concurrency, Storage |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Igor Canadi | Assignee: | Backlog - Storage Execution Team |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 1 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||
| Assigned Teams: |
Storage Execution
|
||||
| Participants: | |||||
| Description |
|
This feature request is for the Storage Engine API. When the underlying engine provides MVCC, there is a lot that can be done to optimize locking in the higher levels. You don't need to lock on reads, since every read gets a consistent state of the database. Are you planning to optimize locking as part of pluggable storage engine API project? |
| Comments |
| Comment by Sara Williamson [ 01/Apr/19 ] |
|
We believe this was resolved as part of 3.0, please let us know if this is still an issue. |
| Comment by Eliot Horowitz (Inactive) [ 15/Jul/14 ] |
|
Lots of locking optimization as part of the storage engine project. |