From: | Yoshiyuki Asaba <y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | kleptog(at)svana(dot)org |
Cc: | andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |
Date: | 2006-06-27 16:33:48 |
Message-ID: | 20060628.013348.74730394.y-asaba@sraoss.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:13:18 +0200
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:45:53AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > No, it says it occurs if this condition is met: "A single *send* call or
> > *WSASend* call fills the whole underlying socket send buffer."
> >
> > This will surely be true if the buffer sizes are the same. They
> > recommend making the socket buffer at least 1 byte bigger.
>
> Ok, but even then, are there any benchmarks to show it makes a
> difference. The articles suggests there should be but it would be nice
> to see how much difference it makes...
I see the problem in this environment.
* client
- Windows XP
- using ODBC driver
* server
- Windows XP
- 8.1.4
* query time
- original -> about 12sec.
- patch version -> about 3sec.
However, this problem did not occur when I changed a client
machine...
Regards,
--
Yoshiyuki Asaba
y-asaba(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-06-27 16:39:45 | Re: Table clustering idea |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-06-27 16:29:39 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yoshiyuki Asaba | 2006-06-27 16:43:37 | Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-27 16:28:35 | Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32? |