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

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-12 11:07:16
Message-ID: v2o603c8f071004120407maf4459c4o7404dd2bd94a7401@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
>> I understand that in the scale=1000 case, there is a huge
>> cache effect, but why doesn't that apply to the pgbench runs
>> against the standby?  (and for the scale=10_000 case the
>> differences are still rather large)
>
> I guess that this performance degradation happened because a number of
> buffer replacements caused UpdateMinRecoveryPoint() often. So I think
> increasing shared_buffers would improve the performance significantly.

I think we need to investigate this more.  It's not going to look good
for the project if people find that a hot standby server runs two
orders of magnitude slower than the primary.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-04-12 11:54:07
Subject: Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-04-12 10:52:05
Subject: Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL

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