On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:53 PM, James Mansion
> <james@mansionfamily.plus.com> wrote:
>> And I'm disagreeing with that. Single row is a given, but I think you'll
>> find it pays to have one
>> round trip if at all possible and invoking multiple prepared statements can
>> work against this.
>
> You're talking about round-trips to a *local* server, on the same
> system, not a dedicated server with network round-trips, right?
the use-case for a production setup for logging servers would probably
include a network hop.
David Lang
> Blocking round trips to another process on the same server should be
> fairly cheap--that is, writing to a socket (or pipe, or localhost TCP
> connection) where the other side is listening for it; and then
> blocking in return for the response. The act of writing to an FD that
> another process is waiting for will make the kernel mark the process
> as "ready to wake up" immediately, and the act of blocking for the
> response will kick the scheduler to some waiting process, so as long
> as there isn't something else to compete for CPU for, each write/read
> will wake up the other process instantly. There's a task switching
> cost, but that's too small to be relevant here.
>
> Doing 1000000 local round trips, over a pipe: 5.25s (5 *microseconds*
> each), code attached. The cost *should* be essentially identical for
> any local transport (pipes, named pipes, local TCP connections), since
> the underlying scheduler mechanisms are the same.
>
> That's not to say that batching inserts doesn't make a difference--it
> clearly does, and it would probably be a much larger difference with
> actual network round-trips--but round-trips to a local server aren't
> inherently slow. I'd be (casually) interested in knowing what the
> actual costs are behind an SQL command round-trip (where the command
> isn't blocking on I/O, eg. an INSERT inside a transaction, with no I/O
> for things like constraint checks that need to be done before the
> command can return success).
>
>
