X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B7E9FA434 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:40:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 86809-04 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:40:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921CF9FA430 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:40:10 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.3 Received: from ns2.nec.com.au (ns2.nec.com.au [147.76.180.2]) by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2A6C5AF02A for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:40:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp1.nec.com.au (unknown [172.31.8.18]) by ns2.nec.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D173B6A2 for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:40:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from eddy (eddy.ssd.neca.nec.com.au [147.76.48.116]) by warp.ssd.neca.nec.com.au (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with SMTP id k6J5e3uP023962; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:40:03 +1000 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Guoping Zhang" To: Cc: "Guoping Zhang (E-mail)" Subject: Performance penalty for remote access of postgresql (8.1.3)? any experiance? Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 15:40:02 +1000 Message-ID: <003401c6aaf5$c8c2d900$74304c93@eddy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="hz-gb-2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.199 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_40, SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200607/189 X-Sequence-Number: 20049 Hello, I am seeking advice/comment/experience you may have had for the performance cost for remote access to postgresql 8.1.X? I have two servers, one is Sun V240 (say server A) and the other is dual intel Xeon (say Server B) and both installed Solaris 10. With Server A, there is postgresql 8.1.3 installed with pgpool (pgpool-3.0.2), with server B, there is a pgpool (v3.0.2) installed. The test program is installed on both A and B, where the test application on server B is accessing to DBMS on A through pgpool. Note that the test code is not fancy but can insert a large number of record (say 100k rows) with configurable transaction size. Following are the results (repeated many times with the mean value and shall be accurate) for various setting by fixed 100k insertion operation with a transaction size as 100 rows): ------------------------------------------ 1. Test program running on server A directly access to LOCAL postgresql: 24.03 seconds 2. Test progam running on server A access to LOCAL postgresql through pgpool: 30.05 seconds 3. Test progam running on server A access REMOTE postgresql through local pgpool: 74.06 seconds ------------------------------------------ I have to say both machines are very light load and interconnected with local LAN.