Thank you for your reply. I have done some further tests: Taking into account possible network problems I ran pgbench on the pgpool server hitting the db server directly to gauge any network latency issues:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ pgbench -c 20 -t 1000 -h XX.XXX.XX.XXX -p 5432 testdb1 starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 1 number of clients: 20 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 20000/20000 tps = 974.866385 (including connections establishing) tps = 977.606505 (excluding connections establishing) turning off replication and only using pgpool "connection pooling" I still get a pretty big decrease in performance. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ pgbench -c 20 -t 1000 -h localhost -p 9999 testdb starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 1 number of clients: 20 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 20000/20000 tps = 718.794739 (including connections establishing) tps = 742.188834 (excluding connections establishing) I still think I might have something configured incorrectly. Is pgbench not a good tool to benchmark the connection pooling with? Thank you for your time. --J On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm running Postgres 8.1.11. Here are the results of a pgbench test > > pgbench -c 20 -t 1000 testdb > > starting vacuum...end. > > transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) > > scaling factor: 1 > > number of clients: 20 > > number of transactions per client: 1000 > > number of transactions actually processed: 20000/20000 > > tps = 731.350579 (including connections establishing) > > tps = 732.860160 (excluding connections establishing) > > > > I set up another environment with 3 servers 1 pgpool server and 2 > masters > > for master-master replication. Everything on the pgpool functions great > but > > the performance is terrible. Here are the results of the same pgbench > test > > run on the pgpool cluster. > > pgbench -p 9999 -c 20 -t 1000 testdb > > starting vacuum...end. > > transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) > > scaling factor: 1 > > number of clients: 20 > > number of transactions per client: 1000 > > number of transactions actually processed: 20000/20000 > > tps = 443.242941 (including connections establishing) > > tps = 443.912381 (excluding connections establishing) > > tps = 401.669441 (excluding connections establishing) > > > > > > All four servers have exactly the same hardware configuration. > > > > Is this performance loss normal? > > Yes. > > I think existing shared-nothing-synchronous-replication softwares > including PGCluster will show more or less same performance. > > I should note that while other such replication softwares show the > performance degration almost propotional to the numbers of PostgreSQL > servers, pgpool's performance is not worse than 1/2 of PostgreSQL. > > Also please note that READ query performance will increase according > to the numbers of PostgreSQL servers. So you have a chance to get > performance boost if most of your quries are READ. Of course this may > vary to the characteristics of load though. > -- > Tatsuo Ishii > SRA OSS, Inc. Japan >
_______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list [email protected] http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
