From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <imun@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtpng2.m.smailru.net (smtpng2.m.smailru.net [94.100.179.3])
 (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 62364469719
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 19 Mar 2020 13:32:58 +0300 (MSK)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 13:26:39 +0300
From: Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <20200319102639.GI6392@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>
 <20200319090846.GH6392@tarantool.org>
 <20200319100639.GA11867@atlas>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200319100639.GA11867@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>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

Kostja,

On 19.03.20, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Igor Munkin <imun@tarantool.org> [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.

I was misled, since you commented the patch with box.cfg related
changes. Now the performance issue is clear, thanks.

> 
> 
> -- 
> Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia

-- 
Best regards,
IM