From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Artur Zając <azajac(at)ang(dot)com(dot)pl> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: NOTIFY performance |
Date: | 2012-08-24 19:12:05 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0x5r+3zL6WYpHmuHhONatGYG3f49sdx+2z4Jjc2FhNBxQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Artur Zając <azajac(at)ang(dot)com(dot)pl> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I would like to create some application using triggers and LISTEN/NOTIFY
> framework. I've tested it, and I noticed that performance of NOTIFY
> significally decreases with increasing number of distinct NOTIFIES in
> transaction.
> I found that function AsyncExistsPendingNotify is responsibe for it. I think
> that complexivity of searching duplicates there is O(N^2). Would be possible
> to improve performance of it? Maybe by using list for elements precedence
> and binary search tree for searching duplicates - with complexivity of
> O(Nlog2(N)).
>
> I'v tested with 50000 of NOTICES. Updating table with 20000 NOTICES when
> searching is not performed took 1,5 second. With searching it took 28
> seconds.
I've confirmed the n^2 behavior on 9.2:
postgres=# select pg_notify(v::text, null) from generate_series(1,10000) v;
Time: 281.000 ms
postgres=# select pg_notify(v::text, null) from generate_series(1,50000) v;
Time: 7148.000 ms
...but i'm curious if you're going about things the right
way...typically I'd imagine you'd write out actionable items to a
table and issue a much broader NOTIFY which taps listeners on the
table to search the action queue. Could you describe your problem in
a little more detail?
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-08-24 19:40:57 | Re: Loose Index Scans by Planner? |
Previous Message | Artur Zając | 2012-08-24 18:46:42 | NOTIFY performance |