[ADMIN] Re: [pgpool-general: 5318] Why pgpool TPS is lowest versus postgresql direct connections? - Mailing list pgsql-admin
From | David Sisk -X (dsisk - TEKSYSTEMS INC at Cisco) |
---|---|
Subject | [ADMIN] Re: [pgpool-general: 5318] Why pgpool TPS is lowest versus postgresql direct connections? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 9455fab2a1fe40a68d97c81fdda72b4d@XCH-RCD-012.cisco.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | [ADMIN] Why pgpool TPS is lowest versus postgresql direct connections? ("Lazaro Garcia" <lazaro3487@gmail.com>) |
List | pgsql-admin |
Also, the benefits of load balancing don’t tend to show up well with pgbench or sysbench default benchmarks. PGPool imposes some overhead in determining which queries can be load-balanced against a standby…with SELECT queries that execute in only a few milliseconds, it might take PGPool longer to make that decision than it would have to just send it straight to the primary. So, you won’t see the load balancing benefits with SELECT queries that execute in a few milliseconds, but when you send it SELECT queries that take a few seconds or longer to execute you’ll start to see the benefits. You could create a custom benchmark that has some high-reduction queries that would take a few seconds to execute, then run the benchmarks with that…you should then see scalability improvements from the load balancing.
Hope this helps,
| |||||
David Sisk Engineer - Software Tel: | Cisco Systems, Inc. 7025-6 Kit Creek Road PO Box 14987 |
| |
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message. Please click here for Company Registration Information. |
From: pgpool-general-bounces@pgpool.net [mailto:pgpool-general-bounces@pgpool.net] On Behalf Of Lazaro Garcia
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 5:00 AM
To: pgpool-general@pgpool.net; pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: [pgpool-general: 5318] Why pgpool TPS is lowest versus postgresql direct connections?
The correct results reported by sysbench was:
Concurrent Users | 1 | 20 | 50 | 100 |
PostgreSQL | 3582 | 11943 | 12852 | 10618 |
Pgpool | 2240 | 7628 | 7013 | 6135 |
Is there any way to tuning this behavior?
Regards
De: Lazaro Garcia [mailto:lazaro3487@gmail.com]
Enviado el: miércoles, 8 de febrero de 2017 05:28 p. m.
Para: 'pgpool-general@pgpool.net'; 'pgsql-admin@postgresql.org'
Asunto: Why pgpool TPS is lowest versus postgresql direct connections?
After installed Pgpool with 2 postgresql nodes with streaming replication, I have noticed that access directly to postgresql is more efficient than through pgpool.
I supposed that load balance could increase the transactions per second executed because each node could receive more load, but the results shown below are not expected.
This is the setup:
Pgpool 3.6.1 whit connection pooling, streaming replication mode and load balancing mode.
2 PostgreSQL server 9.6.1 whit streaming replication.
For the tests I used sysbench and pgbench.
The results of sysbench:
Concurrent Users | 1 | 20 | 50 | 100 |
PostgreSQL (TPS) Direct | 1166 | 20936 | 25743 | 27344 |
Pgpool (TPS) | 2240 | 7628 | 7013 | 6135 |
The results of pgbench
1 | 20 | 50 | 100 | |
PostgreSQL (TPS) Direct | 1403 | 6805 | 6194 | 5726 |
Pgpool (TPS) | 511 | 5430 | 5528 | 4705 |
As you can see in both cases even with load balance, the total transactions per second are lower.
Is this the expected behavior. Is there any way to allow more TPS when pgpool is used?
There are other publications with similar results:
https://www.os3.nl/_media/2011-2012/courses/lia/rory_breuk_gerrie_veerman_-_report.pdf (page 28)
http://www.mail-archive.com/pgpool-general@pgfoundry.org/msg03326.html
Regards
Attachment
pgsql-admin by date: