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: Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(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 13:17:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.

Hmm.  That's not great, but it's a lot better than 50x.  I wonder what
was different in Erik's environment.  Does running in standby mode use
more memory, such that it might have pushed the machine over the line
into swap?

Or if it's CPU load, maybe Erik could gprof it?


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Aidan Van DykDate: 2010-04-12 13:30:01
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-04-12 13:04:49
Subject: Re: Streaming replication and a disk full in primary

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