Re: Got no response last time on setsockopt post, so I thought I would reiterate.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Smith [mailto:gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 4:09 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Got no response last time on setsockopt post,
so I
> thought I would reiterate.
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> > These two calls make our remote queries via libpq about twice as
fast on
> > average.
>
> Can you comment a bit on what your remote queries are typically doing?
> You'll need to provide at least an idea what type of test case you're
> seeing the improvement on for others to try and replicate it.

We have literally thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands -- I'm not
totally sure exactly how many there are because I am in development and
not in testing) of queries, that take dozens of machines over a week to
run.

Our queries include inserts, updates, deletes, joins, views, um... You
name it.

Our product is database middleware and so we have to test against
anything that is a legal SQL query against every sort of database and
operating system combination (PostgreSQL is one of many environments
that we support).

If you have seen the NIST SQL verification suite, that is part of our
test suite. We also found the PostgreSQL suite useful (though the
PostgreSQL specific things we only run against PostgreSQL). We also
have our own collection of regression tests that we have gathered over
the past 20 years or so.

I can't be specific because we run every sort of query. Most of our
hardware is fairly high end (generally 1GB Ethernet, but we do have some
machines that only have 100 MB net cards in them).

I guess that our usage is atypical for general business use but fairly
typical for those companies that produce middleware tool sets. However,
many of our regressions came from customer feedback and so we do test
lots and lots of valid customer requirements.

I have a simple suggestion:
Put the setsockopt calls in (with the necessary fluff to make it robust)
and then perform the OSDB test. I guess that unless the OSDB houses the
clients and the server on the same physical hardware you will see a very
large bonus for a very simple change.

> --
> * Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore,
MD