On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Oskari Saarenmaa <o...@ohmu.fi> writes: >> On my laptop a simple pgbench run (scale 100, 15 minutes) shows a 1.5% >> performance improvement. > > I would have hoped for a lot better result before anyone would propose > that we should deal with all the portability issues this'll create. > >> A 1.5% performance improvement is small but >> measurable - and IMV more importantly it allows us to drop more than 100 >> lines of backwards (compatible?) code; maybe we could start targeting >> more recent platforms in v10? > > That's basically nonsense: we'll end up adding way more than that to > deal with platforms that haven't got these APIs.
Perhaps a better target would then be to try and make use of readv and writev, which should both be useful for sequential access of various kinds and network I/O. For instance, when reading 10 sequential buffers, a readv could fill 10 buffers at a time. I remember a project where we got a linear improvement in thoughput by using them for network I/O, because we were limited by packet thoughput rather than byte thoughput, and using the iovec utilities reduced the overhead considerably. But all this is anecdotal evidence in any case, YMMV. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
