On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. As a data point, I did a read only pgbench test and found that the standby runs about 15% slower than the primary with identical hardware and configs. > > ...Robert > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
-- -- Jim Mlodgenski EnterpriseDB (http://www.enterprisedb.com) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
