Those are two separate things. A Glock 19, for instance, it technically a "compact", but it dwarfs true "micro compacts" in the same caliber, like a Sig P938 or Kahr PM9.
But that said, the smaller and lighter the gun, the snappier it will feel if comparing to larger guns of the same caliber. But if we're only talking 9mm, then it's not really a control issue as much as it is a comfort issue. Larger, heavier guns are just more pleasant to shoot if shooting for long sessions.
While barrel length does change hard ballistic numbers (longer the barrel, typically better performance), the increments are rather tiny between most pistol size classes, leading to rather insignificant changes for the most part. At least for real world confrontation distances with pistol calibers.
Personally speaking, the "smallest 9mm" race was kind of dumb. I started with guns right when that was revving up and fell for it myself. Everyone was racing to make the smallest 9mm, culminating with what is possibly the best reference size in the original P365. But if you look what has happened from there, Sig has slowly been going back the other direction as the audience that fell in love with the P365 realized they actually do want a larger gun. So it was then the XL, and now the Macro. And we've practically gone full circle back to "compact". Just a little thinner now.
So in my opinion, the best "smallest" gun is a P365X or XL. There are smaller micro compacts out there, but I feel the ergo trade off is not ideal.