On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 7:34 PM, MauMau wrote:
>> I can't speak for other databases, but it's only natural to assume
>> that tps must drop. At minimum, you have to add the latency of
>> communication and remote sync operation to your transaction time. For
>> very short transactions this adds up t
From: "Merlin Moncure"
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM, MauMau wrote:
Hello,
I've heard from some people that synchronous streaming replication has
severe performance impact on the primary. They said that the transaction
throughput of TPC-C like benchmark (perhaps DBT-2) decreased by 50%. I'm
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Robert Klemme
wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Robert Klemme
>> wrote:
>>> I am not sure whether the replicant can be triggered to commit to disk
>>> before the commit to disk on the master has suc
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Robert Klemme
> wrote:
>> I am not sure whether the replicant can be triggered to commit to disk
>> before the commit to disk on the master has succeeded; if that was the
>> case there would be true serializa
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Robert Klemme
wrote:
> I am not sure whether the replicant can be triggered to commit to disk
> before the commit to disk on the master has succeeded; if that was the
> case there would be true serialization => 50%.
>
> This sounds like it could actually be the cas
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM, MauMau wrote:
>> I've heard from some people that synchronous streaming replication has
>> severe performance impact on the primary. They said that the transaction
>> throughput of TPC-C like benchmark (perhap
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM, MauMau wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've heard from some people that synchronous streaming replication has
> severe performance impact on the primary. They said that the transaction
> throughput of TPC-C like benchmark (perhaps DBT-2) decreased by 50%. I'm
> sorry I haven't
Hi,
I would be really grateful for feedback regardding this issue. Tom?
Should Ifile a bug-report about the optimizer trying too hard to
collapse the subquery and therefor generating a bad plan?
Its my understanding that a IN shouldn't perform any worse than ANY on
an ARRAY, right?
Thank you in
Hello,
I've heard from some people that synchronous streaming replication has
severe performance impact on the primary. They said that the transaction
throughput of TPC-C like benchmark (perhaps DBT-2) decreased by 50%. I'm
sorry I haven't asked them about their testing environment, because th
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Robert Klemme
wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
>> let's see the query plan...when you turned it off, did it go faster?
>> put your suspicious plans here: http://explain.depesz.com/
>
> I suggest to post three plans:
>
> 1. insert int
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> let's see the query plan...when you turned it off, did it go faster?
> put your suspicious plans here: http://explain.depesz.com/
I suggest to post three plans:
1. insert into temp table
2. access to temp table before analyze
3. access to
11 matches
Mail list logo
