From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Трофимов Иван <i(dot)trofimow(at)yandex(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | "pgsql-interfaces(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-interfaces(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: About default inBufSize (connection read buffer size) in libpq |
Date: | 2023-03-06 18:15:11 |
Message-ID: | 20230306181511.kpje2skz2vhpqz3b@awork3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Hi,
On 2023-03-05 05:42:06 +0300, Трофимов Иван wrote:
> I was running some benchmarks for PG driver built on top of libpq async
> functionality,
> and noticed that recv syscalls issued by the application are limited by 16Kb,
> which seems to
> be inBufSize coming from makeEmptyPGconn in interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c.
>
> Hacking that to higher values allowed my benchmarks to issue drastically less
> syscalls
> when running some heavy selects, both in local and cloud environments, which
> made them
> significantly faster.
>
> I believe there is a reason for that value to be 16Kb, but i was wondering if
> it's safe to change
> this default to user-provided value, and if it is - could this functionality be
> added into API?
I've observed the small buffer size hurting as well - not just client side,
also on the serve.
But I don't think we necessarily need to make it configurable. From what I can
tell the pain mainly comes using the read/send buffers when they don't even
help, because the message data we're processing is bigger than the buffer
size. When we need to receive / send data that we know is bigger than the
the buffer, we should copy the portion that is still in the buffer, and then
send/receive directly from the data to be sent/received.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Soumyadeep Chakraborty | 2023-03-06 18:36:42 | Re: pg_rewind: Skip log directory for file type check like pg_wal |
Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-03-06 17:37:23 | Re: add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Flaris Feller | 2023-03-06 23:33:45 | Re: Transaction control in a C language function |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-03-06 15:21:30 | Re: Transaction control in a C language function |