Stefan de Konink wrote: > Martin Kersten wrote: >> Consequently, moving to a binary protocol is not >> warranted by comparison, nor effective in terms >> of performance improvement. 50% of the cost in >> MonetDB for these queries are the SQL parser and >> query cache matching. >> >> Given the focus of MonetDB on datawarehousing, >> rather then high volume web-interactions, there >> has been no steps taken to improve the protocol. > > You only mention here the performance gain within MonetDB, as opposed > to the performance gain that could be generated if the client doesn't > need to parse integers from strings to work on them but only make an > in memory reference to the current row, and threating it as a c-struct. Indeed. Even in an application it becomes relevant to know how much time is actually spent at the interface. My conjuncture is that it is a few percent only, contrived cases excluded. Fastly outnumbered by even the network delays.
Measuring applications and studying there behavior using e.g. Callgrind gives you a reasonable insight in the performance bottlenecks. Eg. in your recent callgrind file there was about a 10% cpu cycles loss due to virtualization it seemed. > > > Stefan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Monetdb-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/monetdb-developers
