| From: | sparikh <sparikh(at)ecotality(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hot Standby performance issue |
| Date: | 2013-10-22 21:41:19 |
| Message-ID: | 1382478079418-5775526.post@n5.nabble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
From Primary:
relname relpages
pg_toast_17673 1812819
pg_toast_17594 161660
pg_toast_17972 121902
pg_toast_17587 77190
pg_toast_18537 29108
pg_toast_17578 26638
pg_toast_17673_index 19984
pg_toast_17868 14911
pg_toast_17594_index 2208
pg_toast_1072246 1922
pg_toast_17587_index 1510
pg_toast_17972_index 1399
pg_statistic 911
pg_toast_18694 883
pg_toast_17578_index 375
pg_attribute 336
pg_toast_16475 332
pg_toast_18537_index 321
pg_proc 233
pg_depend_depender_index 176
From Secondary :
============
relname relpages
pg_toast_17673 1812819
pg_toast_17594 161660
pg_toast_17972 121902
pg_toast_17587 77190
pg_toast_18537 29108
pg_toast_17578 26638
pg_toast_17673_index 19984
pg_toast_17868 14911
pg_toast_17594_index 2208
pg_toast_1072246 1922
pg_toast_17587_index 1510
pg_toast_17972_index 1399
pg_statistic 911
pg_toast_18694 883
pg_toast_17578_index 375
pg_attribute 336
pg_toast_16475 332
pg_toast_18537_index 321
pg_proc 233
pg_depend_depender_index 176
Yes, result looks same both on primary and standby.
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Hot-Standby-performance-issue-tp5774673p5775526.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | sparikh | 2013-10-22 21:50:27 | Re: Hot Standby performance issue |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-10-22 18:56:14 | Logic of lowering seq_page_cost for SSD? |