| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Erik Rijkers" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-25 18:55:02 |
| Message-ID: | 6906.1272221702@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Erik Rijkers" <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> FWIW, here are some more results from pgbench comparing
> primary and standby (both with Simon's patch).
That seems weird. Why do most of the runs show primary and standby
as having comparable speed, but a few show the standby as much slower?
The parameters for those runs don't seem obviously different from cases
where it's fast. I think there might have been something else going on
on the standby during those runs. Or do you think those represent
cases where the mystery slowdown event happened?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-25 19:02:23 | Re: global temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2010-04-25 18:25:16 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |