Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-06-27 16:39:45
Subject: Re: Table clustering idea
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-06-27 16:29:39
Subject: Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Yoshiyuki AsabaDate: 2006-06-27 16:43:37
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-06-27 16:28:35
Subject: Re: SO_SNDBUF size is small on win32?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group