pgbouncer - massive overhead?

From: "Strange, John W" <john(dot)w(dot)strange(at)jpmorgan(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: pgbouncer - massive overhead?
Date: 2012-06-19 16:00:51
Message-ID: D785635498B68242A957B09272733DBF15499A09@SCACMX007.exchad.jpmchase.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Given a baseline postgresql.conf config and a couple DL580 40 core/256GB memory I noticed a large over head for pgbouncer, has anyone seen this before?

$ pgbench -h `hostname -i` -j 32 -p 4320 -U asgprod -s 500 -c 32 -S -T 60 pgbench_500
Scale option ignored, using pgbench_branches table count = 500
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: SELECT only
scaling factor: 500
query mode: simple
number of clients: 32
number of threads: 32
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 1743073
tps = 29049.886666 (including connections establishing)
tps = 29050.308194 (excluding connections establishing)

$ pgbench -h `hostname -i` -j 32 -p 4310 -U asgprod -s 500 -c 32 -S -T 60 pgbench_500
Scale option ignored, using pgbench_branches table count = 500
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: SELECT only
scaling factor: 500
query mode: simple
number of clients: 32
number of threads: 32
duration: 60 s
number of transactions actually processed: 8692204
tps = 144857.505107 (including connections establishing)
tps = 144880.181341 (excluding connections establishing)

processor : 39
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 47
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4860 @ 2.27GHz

This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tim Jacobs 2012-06-19 21:34:56 Why is a hash join being used?
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2012-06-18 19:08:37 Re: Expected performance of querying 5k records from 4 million records?