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

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-13 05:44:19
Message-ID: 4BC404B3.2080300@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I could reproduce this on my laptop, standby is about 20% slower. I ran
oprofile, and what stands out as the difference between the master and
standby is that on standby about 20% of the CPU time is spent in
hash_seq_search(). The callpath is GetSnapshotDat() ->
KnownAssignedXidsGetAndSetXmin() -> hash_seq_search(). That explains the
difference in performance.

-- 
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-04-13 06:09:28
Subject: Re: non-reproducible failure of random test on HEAD
Previous:From: Murali M. KrishnaDate: 2010-04-13 05:32:11
Subject: Re: debugger question

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