| From: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flushing large data immediately in pqcomm |
| Date: | 2024-03-14 13:03:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAGECzQT9gH6uUd9pnTC=NB7TSwiTsO3kxYH5BXraSy3549Oe_g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 13:12, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:22 AM Melih Mutlu <m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > 1- Even though I expect both the patch and HEAD behave similarly in case of small data (case 1: 100 bytes), the patch runs slightly slower than HEAD.
>
> I wonder why this happens. It seems like maybe something that could be fixed.
some wild guesses:
1. maybe it's the extra call overhead of the new internal_flush
implementation. What happens if you make that an inline function?
2. maybe swap these conditions around (the call seems heavier than a
simple comparison): !pq_is_send_pending() && len >= PqSendBufferSize
BTW, the improvements for the larger rows are awesome!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-03-14 13:15:56 | Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-03-14 13:02:46 | Re: Inconsistent printf placeholders |