Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-21 06:39:16
Message-ID: 1271831956.8305.26815.camel@ebony (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 15:09 +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:

> I did some testing of this patch (v2). Unfortunately I don't have access 
> to hardware capable of doing tests at the same scale as Erik used. 
> However I was still able to show a consistent difference (I think) 
> between standby performance with and without the patch applied.

...

> Overall looks like the patch gets standby read only performance close to 
> the master - at least in the case where there are minimal master 
> transactions being tracked by the standby (I had to leave the master 
> idle whilst running the standby case, as they shared the machine). Hope 
> this info is useful.

Thanks very much for the report; always good to get confirmation.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-04-21 06:50:50
Subject: Re: Move tablespace
Previous:From: feng tianDate: 2010-04-21 05:03:10
Subject: libpq connectoin redirect

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group