On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Dave Crooke wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> You perform 8 roundtrips minimum per event, so that's 375us per query.
>> It doesn't look like much. That's probably Nagle and task switching
>> time, I don't think you can get it much l
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>
> You perform 8 roundtrips minimum per event, so that's 375us per query.
> It doesn't look like much. That's probably Nagle and task switching
> time, I don't think you can get it much lower than that, without
> issuing less queries (ie: usi
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Ofer Israeli wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Samuel Gendler < sgend...@ideasculptor.com >
> wrote:
>> But suggesting moving away from TCP/IP with no actual evidence that it is
>> network overhead that is the problem is a little premature, regardless.
>
On Sun, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Samuel Gendler < sgend...@ideasculptor.com >
wrote:
> But suggesting moving away from TCP/IP with no actual evidence that it is
> network overhead that is the problem is a little premature, regardless.
Agreed, that's why I'd like to understand what tools / met
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ofer Israeli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We are running performance tests using PG 8.3 on a Windows 2008 R2 machine
> connecting locally over TCP.
> In our tests, we have found that it takes ~3ms to update a table with ~25
> columns and 60K records, with one column indexed
On 04/01/2012 09:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/01/2012 08:29 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan
wrote:
You could try using Unix domain socket and see if the performance
improves. A relevant link:
He said Windows. There are no Unix domain sockets
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 04/01/2012 08:29 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You could try using Unix domain socket and see if the performance
improves. A relevant link:
>>>
>>> He said Wi
On 04/01/2012 08:29 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
You could try using Unix domain socket and see if the performance
improves. A relevant link:
He said Windows. There are no Unix domain sockets on Windows. (And please
don't top-post)
Windows
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> You could try using Unix domain socket and see if the performance
>> improves. A relevant link:
>
>
> He said Windows. There are no Unix domain sockets on Windows. (And please
> don't top-post)
Windows supports named pipes, which are functi
On 04/01/2012 06:01 PM, Andy wrote:
You could try using Unix domain socket and see if the performance
improves. A relevant link:
He said Windows. There are no Unix domain sockets on Windows. (And
please don't top-post)
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-per
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ofer Israeli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We are running performance tests using PG 8.3 on a Windows 2008 R2 machine
> connecting locally over TCP.
8.3 will be not supported in under a year. Time to start testing upgrades.
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/
--
nt: Sunday, April 1, 2012 4:24 PM
Subject: [PERFORM] TCP Overhead on Local Loopback
Hi
all,
We are running
performance tests using PG 8.3 on a Windows 2008 R2 machine connecting locally
over TCP.
In our tests, we
have found that it takes ~3ms to update a table with ~25 columns and 60K
records
Hi all,
We are running performance tests using PG 8.3 on a Windows 2008 R2 machine
connecting locally over TCP.
In our tests, we have found that it takes ~3ms to update a table with ~25
columns and 60K records, with one column indexed.
We have reached this number after many tweaks of the databas
13 matches
Mail list logo
