public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jeffery Janes <[email protected]>
To: Raj <[email protected]>
Cc: Pgsql-admin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: TPS in direct Postgres Vs TPS in pgbouncer
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2026 15:19:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMkU=1xvG99AY7-SiOjppHVZXGdFYzRHOD1GFeSV_mBj84t53w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJk5AtYBpy2ROKzv+se+LXpM4PZdzifnY_rZvamjHpBELxYUog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJk5AtYBpy2ROKzv+se+LXpM4PZdzifnY_rZvamjHpBELxYUog@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 9:24 AM Raj <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> When the application team is using posytgres directly for 17.9 version,
> they get necessary TPS.
>
> When they use pgbouncer, they get 50% reduction in TPS.
>
> What are general advices?
>
What is the transaction being used? If it is something very simple, like
pgbench's built-in -S, then I think this is expected. Injecting pgbouncer
doubles the amount of network/IPC thrashing needed. If you have a meaty
transaction, this might not matter but on a very light transaction you
might be doubling something which is already counting for 90% of the time.
Cheers,
Jeff
view thread (3+ messages)
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: TPS in direct Postgres Vs TPS in pgbouncer
In-Reply-To: <CAMkU=1xvG99AY7-SiOjppHVZXGdFYzRHOD1GFeSV_mBj84t53w@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox