Re: Add PQsendSyncMessage() to libpq

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Anton Kirilov <antonvkirilov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Add PQsendSyncMessage() to libpq
Date: 2023-05-01 23:55:09
Message-ID: ZFBRXa5VMZ7Z+/V6@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 01:59:17AM +0100, Anton Kirilov wrote:
> 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.

Well, these are nice numbers. At ~1% I am ready to buy the noise
argument, but what would the range of the usual noise when it comes to
multiple runs under the same conditions?

Let's make sure that the API interface is the most intuitive (Robert
has commented about that a few days ago, still need to follow up on
that).
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-05-02 00:42:19 Re: Add PQsendSyncMessage() to libpq
Previous Message Regina Obe 2023-05-01 21:50:49 RE: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames