| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Strong, David" <david(dot)strong(at)unisys(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
| Date: | 2006-10-02 21:09:16 |
| Message-ID: | 14947.1159823356@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Strong, David" <david(dot)strong(at)unisys(dot)com> writes:
> Obviously, different copy mechanisms suit different data sizes. So, I
> added a little debug to the strlcpy () function that was added to
> Postgres the other day. I ran a test against Postgres for ~15 minutes
> that used 2 client backends and the BG writer - 8330804 calls to
> strlcpy () were generated by the test.
> Out of the 8330804 calls, 6226616 calls used a maximum copy size of
> 2213 bytes e.g. strlcpy (dest, src, 2213) and 2104074 calls used a
> maximum copy size of 64 bytes.
> I know the 2213 size calls come from the set_ps_display () function. I
> don't know where the 64 size calls come from, yet.
Prepared-statement and portal hashtable lookups, likely. Were your
clients using V3 extended query protocol?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Strong, David | 2006-10-02 21:35:19 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-02 21:06:50 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Strong, David | 2006-10-02 21:35:19 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-02 21:06:50 | Re: Faster StrNCpy |