| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adam Palmblad <apalmblad(at)dataunison(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Dynamically loaded C function performance |
| Date: | 2006-05-11 22:49:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4463BF89.6050702@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 03:47:53PM -0700, Adam Palmblad wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>We've got a C function that we use here and we find that for every
>>connection, the first run of the function is much slower than any
>>subsequent runs. ( 50ms compared to 8ms)
>>
>>Besides using connection pooling, are there any options to improve
>>performance?
>
> In my experience, connection startup takes a heck of a lot longer than
> 50ms, so why are you worrying about 50ms for the first run of a
> function?
>
> BTW, sorry, but I don't know a way to speed this up, either.
I think Tom nailed the solution already in a nearby reply -- see
preload_libraries on this page:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/runtime-config-resource.html
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-11 22:51:36 | Re: Nested Loops vs. Hash Joins or Merge Joins |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-11 22:41:12 | Re: Question about explain-command... |