Thread: Why the size (PQ_BUFFER_SIZE) of backend send buffers is 8192 ?
Why the size (PQ_BUFFER_SIZE) of backend send buffers is 8192 ? Can i set it to other value ?
If i extend or decrease it , can it affect the performance of sending message?
张晓博 研发二部
北京人大金仓信息技术股份有限公司
地址:北京市海淀区上地西路八号院上地科技大厦4号楼501
邮编:100085
电话:(010) 5885 1118 - 8450
手机:15311394463
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Il 03/01/2014 09:47, xbzhang ha scritto: > Why the size (PQ_BUFFER_SIZE) of backend send buffers is 8192 ? > Can i set it to other value ? In principle, it is just an arbitrary amount by which to increase the I/O buffer size. Of course it has to take into account the buffering behaviour of the system kernel and TCP stack. > If i extend or decrease it , can it affect the performance of > sending message? PQ_BUFFER_SIZE handle the low-level details of communication between frontend and backend. I would not decrease its value, there is no reason to expect advantage splitting 8k buffers (i.e. a page content size) in my opinion. Giuseppe. - -- Giuseppe Broccolo - 2ndQuadrant Italy PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support giuseppe.broccolo@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSxoloAAoJELtGpyN/y3jeaF4P/04JXkTNj3uAd3gmff5y74g2 fOo5xNJG4ZhQ4U3Kp8IumN3UIKAq9bP39ufPL2rQZTDzeoYrhF+tn4gtEFYHKobW JMpehihpmgC0/vc78FEQu0hZrMH08A8xdY5L+8heoGkOqZIQwMjsmxwcdTLJNdyO leD933NiiDinXESwXEy3x0LgqaBv11ZeoB6aJgz5jxz95CkpmdSQQwuROYP3nTxy PnjcjX3rzrC5jvUQS9c5gvOHstwyK/aOWjCI14dygEM6WuwU/jjJoGnSb5SyHUcS HfNKsjpFnjlaYTYHeQq1mYz3br8JhOZ/akK3FHkuvHKAwhi8wAymAXANm7RUGHZr nsiv4MyTMIpI6ynA12c7LbIYwlbgoVE+u/dNoyZySNOJv4kkSV5VNMmbwmRLO2GL ebde35zTn1LjE8LTun/PORiLkG61Xc6+NzjD0PR3yqKklQXPTP/4xoYIxjtg2lp3 dd2ImLhoTE/ruUZpjue75M4XW97jaXKEG2JmdOsOoxJM9UwfXnB9/9DVHJCo5DZk e4B1YM8xn88MTwoWldC2z4SG3Pg91EU8569nkj1eaudx3LTUm9yNGVCr6tK4Lfd2 SxzEpclytxcFsIO7vQrJK374K/3nYQWb/BmYvIn+iarhY/DDb7TeOjuHUHDualNb QBoamS6hNuLdNe+il5dM =2qp+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
xbzhang <xbzhang@kingbase.com.cn> writes: > Why the size (PQ_BUFFER_SIZE) of backend send buffers is 8192 ? Traditionally, at least, that was the size of pipe buffers in Unix machines, so in principle this is the most optimal chunk size for sending data across a Unix socket. I have no idea though if that's still true in kernels in common use today. For TCP communication it might be marginally better to find out the MTU size and use that; but it's unclear that it's worth the trouble, or indeed that we can know the end-to-end MTU size with any reliability. regards, tom lane
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 10:00:42AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > know the end-to-end MTU size with any reliability. Well, you could try PMTU discovery, though I agree that it's not great. It also seems pretty low-level for something like the DBMS to be doing. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@crankycanuck.ca