From: | Anton Kirilov <antonvkirilov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add PQsendSyncMessage() to libpq |
Date: | 2023-04-30 00:59:17 |
Message-ID: | 46201226-51a9-e261-fe54-efca5bab4a82@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
On 28/04/2023 09:08, Denis Laxalde wrote:
> Michael Paquier a écrit :
>> Speaking of which, what was the performance impact of your application
>> once PQflush() was moved out of the pipeline sync? Just asking for
>> curiosity..
>
> I have no metrics for that; but maybe Anton has some?
I did a quick check using the TechEmpower Framework Benchmarks (
https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/ ) - they define 4 Web
application tests that are database-bound. Everything was running on a
single machine, and 3 of the tests had an improvement of 29.16%, 32.30%,
and 41.78% respectively in the number of requests per second (Web
application requests, not database queries), while the last test
regressed by 0.66% (which I would say is practically no difference,
given that there is always some measurement noise). I will try to get
the changes from my patch tested in the project's continuous
benchmarking environment, which has a proper set up with 3 servers
(client, application server, and database) connected by a 10GbE link.
Best wishes,
Anton Kirilov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2023-04-30 02:29:51 | Re: [PATCH] Clarify the behavior of the system when approaching XID wraparound |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2023-04-29 21:42:59 | Re: Overhauling "Routine Vacuuming" docs, particularly its handling of freezing |