On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 16:28 +0200, Olivier NOEL wrote: > 2011/10/6 Guillaume Lelarge <guilla...@lelarge.info>: > > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 14:56 +0200, Armin Nesiren wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Guillaume Lelarge > >> <guilla...@lelarge.info>wrote: > >> > >> > On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 14:36 +0200, Armin Nesiren wrote: > >> > > Hi everyone, > >> > > > >> > > I'm experiencing performance issues with pgpool-3.1 > >> > > Problem is that when I connect through pgpool to database, database > >> > > works > >> > > slower than > >> > > when I connect directly to master. In this test case, I have disabled > >> > node2, > >> > > just to check performance > >> > > directly and through pgpool. > >> > > > >> > > What can be a problem? > >> > > >> > If I understand correctly, you only have one PostgreSQL server. And your > >> > client goes through pgpool to reach the PostgreSQL server. How can you > >> > expect that it would work faster that one PostgreSQL server alone? > >> > > >> > It'll work faster only if you have more than one PostgreSQL server. And > >> > more than one client. > >> > >> > >> No, with two servers (two nodes) work slower, also with one server through > >> pgpool > >> work slower than directly, I would expect to work same through pgpool and > >> directly. > >> > > > > With one server and one client, through pgpool, that can't be the same. > > pgpool decodes all the client's queries, which takes some time. IOW, > > there is an overhead. But when you have lots of clients, they usually > > are faster. And really faster with more than one PostgreSQL server. > > And it's not. Ok, there is some overhead, but it's veeery slow. >
How did you check that? You may be right in a specific setting, but I have no issues getting better performance with pgpool. -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com _______________________________________________ Pgpool-general mailing list Pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/pgpool-general
