Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>

To: Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>

Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2010-04-21T06:39:16Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 15:09 +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote:

> I did some testing of this patch (v2). Unfortunately I don't have access 
> to hardware capable of doing tests at the same scale as Erik used. 
> However I was still able to show a consistent difference (I think) 
> between standby performance with and without the patch applied.

...

> Overall looks like the patch gets standby read only performance close to 
> the master - at least in the case where there are minimal master 
> transactions being tracked by the standby (I had to leave the master 
> idle whilst running the standby case, as they shared the machine). Hope 
> this info is useful.

Thanks very much for the report; always good to get confirmation.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com