| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Ofer Israeli <oferi(at)checkpoint(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TCP Overhead on Local Loopback |
| Date: | 2012-04-02 11:34:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4F798ED5.1090602@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 04/01/2012 09:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 04/01/2012 08:29 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
>> wrote:
>>>> You could try using Unix domain socket and see if the performance
>>>> improves. A relevant link:
>>>
>>> He said Windows. There are no Unix domain sockets on Windows. (And
>>> please
>>> don't top-post)
>> Windows supports named pipes, which are functionally similar, but I
>> don't think pg supports them.
>>
>
> Correct, so telling the OP to have a look at them isn't at all
> helpful. And they are not supported on all Windows platforms we
> support either (specifically not on XP, AIUI).
>
>
Apparently I was mistaken about the availability. However, my initial
point remains. Since all our client/server comms on Windows are over
TCP, telling the OP to look at Unix domain sockets is unhelpful.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-04-02 16:51:39 | Re: TCP Overhead on Local Loopback |
| Previous Message | Samuel Gendler | 2012-04-02 08:25:09 | Re: TCP Overhead on Local Loopback |