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

Re: 500 times slower

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Karol Szkudlarek" <karol(at)mikronika(dot)com(dot)pl>
Cc: <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 500 times slower
Date: 2005-02-09 14:53:28
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4528A0B@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karol Szkudlarek [mailto:karol(at)mikronika(dot)com(dot)pl] 
> Sent: 09 February 2005 14:06
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [ODBC] 500 times slower
> 
> Hi Dave!
> 
> In my test case I read LOB of 10 megabytes size.
> So then in the function (with 4kB SOCK_BUFFER_SIZE):
> 	SOCK_get_next_byte(SocketClass *self)
> below line (socket.c):
> 
> self->buffer_filled_in = recv(self->socket, (char *) self->buffer_in, 
> self->buffer_size, 0);
> 
> runs in the following schema: 0msec, 200msec, 0msec, 200msec... etc.
> So above times suggest delayed ACK timer (200msec).

OK, that figures. I (and others I've asked) cannot see a reason not to
increase the buffers size other than the extra memory that'll be used
(which is trivial). Anyone disagree before I do so?

Regards, Dave.

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-02-09 16:54:16
Subject: FW: [pgsql-www] Thanks plus three observations & some questions
Previous:From: Karol SzkudlarekDate: 2005-02-09 14:06:11
Subject: Re: 500 times slower

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