On 07/06/2015 04:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
I was able to reproduce huge gains from this, after I introduced an
artificial latency to all network packets with:
tc qdisc add dev eth2 root netem delay 100ms
With that, and with the client on different host so that the
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> I was able to reproduce huge gains from this, after I introduced an
> artificial latency to all network packets with:
> tc qdisc add dev eth2 root netem delay 100ms
> With that, and with the client on different host so that the traffic
> goes through that high-late
On 07/04/2015 02:03 PM, chenhj wrote:
2015-07-03 16:49:44,"David Rowley" wrote：
I'm wondering what the original test setup was. I'm assuming psql
and postgres both running on separate windows machines?
I've tested the patch just connecting to a database running on
localhost and I'm not get
2015-07-03 16:49:44,"David Rowley" wrote：
I'm wondering what the original test setup was. I'm assuming psql and postgres
both running on separate windows machines?
I've tested the patch just connecting to a database running on localhost and
I'm not getting much of a speedup. Perhaps 1%, if th
On 3 July 2015 at 20:49, David Rowley wrote:
> On 3 July 2015 at 20:06, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>>
>> I've tested the patch just connecting to a database running on localhost
> and I'm not getting much of a speedup. Perhaps 1%, if that's not noise. I
> don't have enough hardware here to have clie
On 3 July 2015 at 20:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-02 23:56:16 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 04/10/2015 01:46 PM, chenhj wrote:
> > >Result(execute time):
> > >default(8K), 7.370s
> > >set SO_SNDBUF to 32K, 4.159s(the current implement)
> > >
On 2015-07-02 23:56:16 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 01:46 PM, chenhj wrote:
> >Result(execute time):
> >default(8K), 7.370s
> >set SO_SNDBUF to 32K, 4.159s(the current implement)
> >set SO_SNDBUF to 64K, 2.875s
> >set SO_SNDBUF to 128
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/10/2015 01:46 PM, chenhj wrote:
> I was about to commit the attached, but when I tested this between my
> Windows 8.1 virtual machine and Linux host, I was not able to see any
> performance difference. It may be because the case is h
On 04/10/2015 01:46 PM, chenhj wrote:
PostgreSQL set Win32 server-side socket buffer size to 32k since 2006, for
performance reasons.
While,on the newer version of Windows,such as windows 2012,the default socket
buffer size is 64k,
and seem has better performance(high throughput).
So, i propos
At 2015-04-10 20:00:35, "Michael Paquier" wrote:
>Interesting. I think that for the time being you should add it to the
>next commit fest to target an integration in 9.6 as these days we are
>busy wrapping up the last commit fest of 9.5:
>https://commitfest.postgresql.org/5/
I had add it to th
10 matches
Mail list logo
