> Hi all. I know this has been discussed before, I'd like to know what's the
> current position on this.
> Comparing the performance of the simple vs. extended protocols with pgbench
> yields some extreme results:
> $ ./pgbench -T 10 -S -M simple -f /tmp/pgbench.sql pgbench
> tps = 14739.803253 (excluding connections establishing)
> $ ./pgbench -T 10 -S -M extended -f /tmp/pgbench.sql pgbench
> tps = 11407.012679 (excluding connections establishing)
> (pgbench.sql contains a minimal SELECT 1, I'm running against localhost)
> I was aware that there's some overhead associated with the extended
> protocol, but not that it was a 30% difference... My question is whether
> there are good reasons why this should be so, or rather that this simply
> hasn't been optimized yet. If it's the latter, are there plans to do so?
> To give some context, I maintain Npgsql, the open-source .NET driver for
> PostgreSQL. Since recent version Npgsql uses the extended protocol almost
> exclusively, mainly because it does binary data rather than text. Even if
> that weren't the case, imposing such a performance penalty on extended-only
> features (parameters, prepared statements) seems problematic.
> I'm aware that testing against localhost inflates the performance issue -
> taking into account the latency of a remote server, the simple/extended
> difference would be much less significant. But the issue still seems to be
> relevant.

Without re-using prepared statements or portals, extended protocol is
always slow because it requires more messages exchanges than simple
protocol. In pgbench case, it always sends parse, bind, describe,
execute and sync message in each transaction even if each transaction
involves identical statement ("SELECT 1" in your case).

See the manual for the protocol details.

Best regards,
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to