Pipes vs Events

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
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:

Предыдущее
От: "Magnus Hagander"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] fork/exec patch