#36526: bulk_update uses more memory than expected
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Anže Pečar | Owner: Jason
Type: | Hall
Cleanup/optimization | Status: closed
Component: Database layer | Version: 5.2
(models, ORM) |
Severity: Normal | Resolution: duplicate
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by Anže Pečar):
Natalia Bidart, I pointed out in my initial description that the two
issues are related but I am still not fully convinced that they are
duplicates. In my case I was updating a large number of objects for
several hours and it wouldn't have made a difference if the query took an
extra hour or two. What did make a difference was that the script was
killed with a SIGTERM when the container ran out of memory. :(
Could we reopen until we fully understand what the performance impact of
the code changes proposed from Jason Hall? I made a quick benchmark
earlier today and Jason's solution with the longer transaction ended up
being 6% slower (29.76s vs 28s) but I wanted to also test it on a dataset
with more columns as was the example in #31202.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/36526#comment:10>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/010701985166459e-be6d063d-d7e0-4054-9298-fca166a10f9c-000000%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.
