On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 14:20 +0100, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> On 2011-03-07 01:37, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-03-05 at 21:11 +0100, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> >
> >> I also got a first first> 1000 tps score
> > The committed version should be even faster. Would appreciate a retest.
> >
> pgbench 5 minute test pgbench -c 10 -M prepared -T 300 test
> dbsize was -s 50, 1Gbit Ethernet
>
> 1 async standby
> tps = 2475.285931 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> 2 async standbys
> tps = 2333.670561 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> 1 sync standby
> tps = 1277.082753 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> 1 sync, 1 async standby
> tps = 1273.317386 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> Hard for me to not revert to superlatives right now! :-)
That looks like good news, thanks.
It shows that sync rep is "fairly fast", but it also shows clearly why
you'd want to mix sync and async replication within an application.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
