Joe Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Yes, the new code has _three_ time() calls, rather than the old code > > that I think only had two. I was going to mention it but I figured > > time() was a pretty light system call, sort of like getpid(). > > > > I needed the additional time() calls so the computation of remaining > > time was more accurate, i.e. we are not resetting the timer on a > > select() EINTR anymore. > > > > Should I try to rework it? > > > > I tried two more runs of 10000, and the average is pretty steady at 0.0087. > However the total range is a fair bit wider than I originally reported. > > I added a forth time() call to see what the effect would be. It increased the > average to 0.0089 (two runs of 10000 connects each), so I don't think the > time() call explains the entire difference. > > Not sure this is worth worrying about or not. I'd guess anyone serious about > keeping connect time to a minimum uses some kind of connection pool or > persistent connection anyway.
Well, the fact you see a change of 0.0002 is significant. Let me add that in the old code there was only one time() call _in_ the loop, while now, there are two, so I can easily see there are several additional time() calls. Did you put your calls in the while loop? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
