JP Camara

There's a phenomenal breakdown by JPCamara (https://jpcamara.com/2024/12/01/speeding-up-ruby.html) on why the Ruby#each method was rewritten in Ruby (https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20182). And bonus content from tender love: https://railsatscale.com/2023-08-29-ruby-outperforms-c/. TL;dr - JIT rules.

Best to just forget about it and listen on a connection not using pooling. https://jpcamara.com/2023/04/12/pgbouncer-is-useful.html#listen-notify

what a great post, we have had a ton of issues with users using pgbouncer and it's not because things are "broken" per se, it's just the situation is very complicated, and pgbouncer's docs are also IMO in need of updating to be more detailed and in a few critical cases less misleading, specifically the prepared statements docs. This blog post refers to this misleading nature at https://jpcamara.com/2023/04/12/pgbouncer-is-useful.html#prepared-stat… . > PgBouncer says it doesn’t support prepared statements in either PREPARE or protocol-level format. What it actually doesn’t support are named prepared statements in any form. IMO that's still not accurate. You can use a named prepared statement just fine in transaction mode. start a transaction (so you aren't in autocommit), use a named statement, works fine. you just can't use it again in another transaction, because it will be "gone" (more accurately, "unmoored" - might be in your session, might be in someone else's session). Making things worse, when the prepared statement is "unmoored", its name can then conflict with another client attempting to use the same name. so to use named prepared statements, you can less ideally name them with random strings to avoid conflicts, or you can DEALLOCATE the prepared statement(s) you used at the end of your transaction. for our users that use asyncpg, we have them use a uuid for prepared statements to avoid these name conflicts (asyncpg added this feature for us here:…

You don't need multiple postmasters to spawn connection processes, if you have a set of Postgres proxies each maintaining a set pool of long-standing connections, and parceling them out to application servers upon request. When your proxies use up all their allocated connections, they throttle the application servers rather than overwhelming Postgres itself (either postmaster or query-serving systems). That said, proxies aren't perfect. https://jpcamara.com/2023/04/12/pgbouncer-is-useful.html outlines some dangers of using them (particularly when you might need session-level variables). My understanding is that PgDog does more tracking that mitigates some of these issues, but some of these are fundamental to the model. They're not a drop-in component the way other "proxies" might be.

Possibly https://railsatscale.com/2023-08-29-ruby-outperforms-c/ or https://jpcamara.com/2024/12/01/speeding-up-ruby.html

C itself is fast; it's calls to C from Ruby that are slow. [1] Crossing the Ruby -> C boundary means that a JIT compiler cannot optimize the code as much; because it cannot alter or inline the C code methods. Counterintuitively this means that rewriting (certain?) built-in methods in Ruby leads to performance gains when using YJIT. [2] [1]: https://railsatscale.com/2023-08-29-ruby-outperforms-c/ [2]: https://jpcamara.com/2024/12/01/speeding-up-ruby.html