From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <imun@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256
 bits)) (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25B66469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:15:04 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 12:08:46 +0300
From: Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200319090846.GH6392@tarantool.org>
References: <20191114115020.21091-1-maria.khaydich@tarantool.org>
 <1583942274.319390956@f377.i.mail.ru>
 <20200312132931.GA30900@atlas> <1584041112.66796082@f172.i.mail.ru>
 <20200312200024.GA11476@atlas>
 <20200318222635.GG6392@tarantool.org> <20200319071920.GA3227@atlas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200319071920.GA3227@atlas>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 1/2] box: make box.cfg idempotent
 function
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>, Alexander Turenko <alexander.turenko@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Kostja,

On 19.03.20, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org> [20/03/19 10:08]:
> > I guess the problem have to be fixed anyway.
> > 
> > However you might suggest another fix for the issue? There are several
> > other ways to indicate whether box is configured, e.g. introduce the
> > specific value to the box table. What do you think?
> 
> Why not set a lua variable *from* C instead of calling from Lua
> *into* C each time?

I guess we talk about the same thing.

> 
> I mean, this is an obvious optimization, but it is only worth it
> if there is a measurable slowdown (which I suspect there is, at
> least a couple of %, but even a couple of % IMHO justify it).

I'm OK with your proposal (but I still don't see the box.cfg as a
performance bottleneck).

Sasha, any thoughts?

> 
> > I see for now box.cfg call as not the one performance critical, but I
> > might be missing something you see.
> > 
> > It would be great if you detailed a bit your proposal regarding the fix
> > and its benchmarks.
> 
> -- 
> Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia

-- 
Best regards,
IM