From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-f193.google.com (mail-lj1-f193.google.com [209.85.208.193]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22574469719 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 13:06:41 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-lj1-f193.google.com with SMTP id u15so1448507lji.10 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 03:06:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 13:06:39 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Message-ID: <20200319100639.GA11867@atlas> 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> <20200319090846.GH6392@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200319090846.GH6392@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 1/2] box: make box.cfg idempotent function List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Igor Munkin Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org * Igor Munkin [20/03/19 12:17]: > > 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? box.cfg{} is *not* the bottleneck. box.execute() is, it is having a call to ffi c function now. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia