Re: general PG network slowness (possible cure) (repost)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: general PG network slowness (possible cure) (repost) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11030.1180109781@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: general PG network slowness (possible cure) (repost) ("Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@inv.it.uc3m.es>) |
Ответы |
Re: general PG network slowness (possible cure) (repost)
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@inv.it.uc3m.es> writes: > "Also sprach Tom Lane:" >> Except that in the situation you're describing, there's only a hundred >> or two bytes of response to each query, which means that only one send() >> will occur anyway. (The flush call comes only when we are done >> responding to the current client query.) > It may still be useful. The kernel won't necessarily send data as you > push it down to the network protocols and driver. The driver may decide > to wait for more data to accumulate, No, because we set TCP_NODELAY. Once we've flushed a message to the kernel, we don't want the kernel sitting on it --- any delay there adds directly to the elapsed query time. At least this is the case for the final response to a query. I'm not too clear on whether this means we need to be careful about intermediate message boundaries when there's a lot of data being sent. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: