Pipes vs Events
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Pipes vs Events |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE171579@algol.sollentuna.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Hi! I did some very rudimentary performance testing on "the pipe model" vs "the event and shared mem model". When using the Connx code right off, named pipes were significantly faster. This is because of the Sleep(100) call that was in the Connx code. However, when switching to using two events and one shared memory section (one event signalling in each direction, so WaitForSingleObject with an actual timeout can be used instead of a manual loop with a Sleep call in it), using this method was almost 20 times faster than using named pipes. I don't know how performance critical this part is, but it's a significant enough difference to think about, I think. On a sidenote, I don't think the Connx code right off is secure against two clients hitting the same backend with a signal at the same time. There is a (very small) window where they might conflict, since the shared memory is not protected by a mutex. But this is easily fixed. Named pipes are automatically synchronized, so this problem does not appear in that scenario. //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers-win32 по дате отправления: