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

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Erik Rijkers" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-25 18:55:02
Message-ID: 6906.1272221702@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Erik Rijkers" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> FWIW, here are some more results from pgbench comparing
> primary and standby (both with Simon's patch).

That seems weird.  Why do most of the runs show primary and standby
as having comparable speed, but a few show the standby as much slower?
The parameters for those runs don't seem obviously different from cases
where it's fast.  I think there might have been something else going on
on the standby during those runs.  Or do you think those represent
cases where the mystery slowdown event happened?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-04-25 19:02:23
Subject: Re: global temporary tables
Previous:From: Erik RijkersDate: 2010-04-25 18:25:16
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

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