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

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(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: 2010-04-12 12:32:39
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
As a data point, I did a read only pgbench test and found that the
standby runs about 15% slower than the primary with identical hardware
and configs.
> ...Robert
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:

Jim Mlodgenski
EnterpriseDB (

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2010-04-12 12:39:37
Subject: Re: Streaming replication and a disk full in primary
Previous:From: Erik RijkersDate: 2010-04-12 12:22:41
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group