Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-13 05:44:19
Message-ID: 4BC404B3.2080300@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I could reproduce this on my laptop, standby is about 20% slower. I ran
oprofile, and what stands out as the difference between the master and
standby is that on standby about 20% of the CPU time is spent in
hash_seq_search(). The callpath is GetSnapshotDat() ->
KnownAssignedXidsGetAndSetXmin() -> hash_seq_search(). That explains the
difference in performance.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-04-13 06:09:28 Re: non-reproducible failure of random test on HEAD
Previous Message Murali M. Krishna 2010-04-13 05:32:11 Re: debugger question