From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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 11:07:16 |
Message-ID: | v2o603c8f071004120407maf4459c4o7404dd2bd94a7401@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-04-12 11:54:07 | Re: walreceiver is uninterruptible on win32 |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-04-12 10:52:05 | Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL |