[pgpool-general: 5318] Why pgpool TPS is lowest versus postgresql direct connections?

[Lazaro Garcia]

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 at gmail.com] 
Enviado el: miércoles, 8 de febrero de 2017 05:28 p. m.
Para: 'pgpool-general at pgpool.net'; 'pgsql-admin at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pgpool.net/pipermail/pgpool-general/attachments/20170209/cb95fc4f/attachment.htm>