Re: Add PQsendSyncMessage() to libpq

From: Anton Kirilov <antonvkirilov(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Add PQsendSyncMessage() to libpq
Date: 2023-04-30 00:59:17
Message-ID: 46201226-51a9-e261-fe54-efca5bab4a82@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello,

On 28/04/2023 09:08, Denis Laxalde wrote:
> Michael Paquier a écrit :
>> Speaking of which, what was the performance impact of your application
>> once PQflush() was moved out of the pipeline sync?  Just asking for
>> curiosity..
>
> I have no metrics for that; but maybe Anton has some?
I did a quick check using the TechEmpower Framework Benchmarks (
https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/ ) - they define 4 Web
application tests that are database-bound. Everything was running on a
single machine, and 3 of the tests had an improvement of 29.16%, 32.30%,
and 41.78% respectively in the number of requests per second (Web
application requests, not database queries), while the last test
regressed by 0.66% (which I would say is practically no difference,
given that there is always some measurement noise). I will try to get
the changes from my patch tested in the project's continuous
benchmarking environment, which has a proper set up with 3 servers
(client, application server, and database) connected by a 10GbE link.

Best wishes,
Anton Kirilov

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2023-04-30 02:29:51 Re: [PATCH] Clarify the behavior of the system when approaching XID wraparound
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-04-29 21:42:59 Re: Overhauling "Routine Vacuuming" docs, particularly its handling of freezing