On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Erik Rijkers <e...@xs4all.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
