| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Suggested change to pgbench |
| Date: | 2002-10-07 05:04:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20021007.140425.78704131.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
I have applied your patches plus an fprintf to see if PQisBusy()
actually returns true. Then ran pgbench with -c 128 -t 100. So far I
could not see any evidence that PQisBusy() returns true.
> I think pgbench is not dealing with asynchronous input quite right.
> As written, if the backend sends a response that doesn't fit into
> a single TCP packet, pgbench will go into a tight loop of
> PQisBusy/PQconsumeInput, which will not exit until the rest of the
> response arrives. This would degrade the reported performance, first
> because of the wasted CPU cycles, and second because other connections
> wouldn't get serviced during that interval.
> I haven't done enough tests to be sure that that isn't just a chance
> variation, but I recommend changing the code as below anyway.
Ok, I will commit your changes. Thanks.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Clift | 2002-10-07 10:21:23 | Re: Suggested change to pgbench |
| Previous Message | Aaron Mulder | 2002-10-07 01:26:02 | DBMD Patch |