Re: TCP network cost - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ross J. Reedstrom
Subject Re: TCP network cost
Date
Msg-id 20090224170201.GA25420@cooker
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TCP network cost  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: TCP network cost
List pgsql-performance
Excellent. I'll take a look at this and report back here.

Ross


On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 04:17:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu> writes:
> > Summary: C client and large-object API python both send bits in
> > reasonable time, but I suspect there's still room for improvement in
> > libpq over TCP: I'm suspicious of the 6x difference. Detailed analysis
> > will probably find it's all down to memory allocation and extra copying
> > of bits around (client side)
>
> I wonder if the backend isn't contributing to the problem too.  It chops
> its sends up into 8K units, which doesn't seem to create huge overhead
> in my environment but maybe it does in yours.  It'd be interesting to see
> what results you get from the attached quick-and-dirty patch (against
> HEAD, but it should apply back to at least 8.1).
>
>             regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz
Date:
Subject: will 8.4 be able to optmize rank() windows ?
Next
From: Kouber Saparev
Date:
Subject: Re: LIMIT confuses the planner