Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Optimize Parse+Describe with TCP Pipelining #1059

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Mar 19, 2024

Conversation

vbergeron
Copy link

Second attempt, there I managed to get all the test green locally.

Goal of the PR is to fuse the Parse and the Describe step into one to optimize network exchange.
Despite this being not a very critical workflow, this exchange is simple enough to do a PoC on the concept.

Before:
Parse -> Flush -> await ParseComplete -> Describe -> Flush -> await ParamDesc -> await RowDesc

After:
Parse -> Describe -> Flush -> await ParseComplete -> await ParamDesc -> await RowDesc

This ensure an optimal usage of the socket and should reduce latencies.

@vbergeron vbergeron changed the title Optimize parse describe with TCP Pipelining Optimize Parse+Describe with TCP Pipelining Mar 18, 2024
@codecov-commenter
Copy link

codecov-commenter commented Mar 18, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 84.12%. Comparing base (4f40fc9) to head (8e9b8c3).

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1059      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.13%   84.12%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         136      137       +1     
  Lines        2099     2098       -1     
  Branches      238      230       -8     
==========================================
- Hits         1766     1765       -1     
  Misses        333      333              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@mpilquist mpilquist merged commit 164deb2 into typelevel:main Mar 19, 2024
10 checks passed
@mpilquist
Copy link
Member

Thanks!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants