| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Manuel Kniep <m(dot)kniep(at)web(dot)de>, "fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Date: | 2016-05-23 15:50:02 |
| Message-ID: | 20160523155002.debxru4u57tqztyy@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2016-05-23 17:19:09 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
> Following on from the foreign table batch inserts thread[1], here's a patch
> to add support for pipelining queries into asynchronous batches in libpq.
Yay!
> I'm measuring 300x (not %) performance improvements doing batches on
> servers over the Internet, so this seems pretty worthwhile. It turned out
> to be way less invasive than I expected too.
yay^2.
> (I intentionally didn't add any way for clients to annotate each work-item
> in a batch with their own private data. I think that'd be really useful and
> would make implementing clients easier, but should be a separate patch).
>
> This should be very useful for optimising FDWs, Postgres-XC, etc.
And optimizing normal clients.
Not easy, but I'd be very curious how much psql's performance improves
when replaying a .sql style dump, and replaying from a !tty fd, after
hacking it up to use the batch API.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-05-23 16:00:44 | Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-05-23 15:21:59 | Re: Inheritance |