| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Date: | 2010-04-26 06:52:51 |
| Message-ID: | x2n3f0b79eb1004252352pe7892a9eo2f0111eee55dfe3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl> wrote:
> FWIW, here are some more results from pgbench comparing
> primary and standby (both with Simon's patch).
Was there a difference in CPU utilization between the primary
and standby?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-04-26 07:21:35 | Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2010-04-26 06:49:37 | Re: standbycheck was:(Re: [HACKERS] testing hot standby |