[pgpool-general: 5809] Re: problem with processing time when using pgpool

Tracy Stewart tstewart at vendwatchtelematics.com
Mon Nov 13 10:15:19 JST 2017


Oh so sorry, it was 3.1.3 - much older version for postgres 9.1.  We are actually using that version currently to make sure our customers have the same experience, we are using postgres 9.6 now - since the newer version was totally not working fast enough.

Thanks again for all your help.
Tracy
> On Nov 12, 2017, at 6:00 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> No, I am asking the version of old pgpool.
> 
>>>>> Not sure if anyone else has had this issue, we have an old version of
>>>> pgpool (for postgres 9,1) and when we use this we have NO issues, even
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> 
>> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 17:25:49 -0600
>> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15B150)
>> 
>> 3.6.7. It was listed in the message. Thanks!  Tracy
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Nov 12, 2017, at 5:09 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
>>> 
>>> So what is the current version of Pgpool-II are you are using?
>>> I am asking because you don't tell us that.
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> --
>>> Tatsuo Ishii
>>> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
>>> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
>>> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your quick response.  To show an example, I ran a load test
>>>> using pgbench and here are the results.  Granted, this is over 2x as slow
>>>> using just this basic test for port 5432 and port 9999 and the version is
>>>> 3.6.7:
>>>> 
>>>> 2017-11-10 12:40:31: pid 20066: LOG:  pgpool-II successfully started.
>>>> version 3.6.7 (subaruboshi)
>>>> [root at backup log]# sudo su - postgres
>>>> -bash-4.1$  pgbench -T 120 -j 6 -S -c 4 -p 5432 pgbench
>>>> starting vacuum...end.
>>>> transaction type: <builtin: select only>
>>>> scaling factor: 1
>>>> query mode: simple
>>>> number of clients: 4
>>>> number of threads: 4
>>>> duration: 120 s
>>>> number of transactions actually processed: 2341361
>>>> latency average = 0.205 ms
>>>> tps = 19511.281019 (including connections establishing)
>>>> tps = 19512.862613 (excluding connections establishing)
>>>> -bash-4.1$  pgbench -T 120 -j 6 -S -c 4 -p 9999 pgbench
>>>> starting vacuum...end.
>>>> transaction type: <builtin: select only>
>>>> scaling factor: 1
>>>> query mode: simple
>>>> number of clients: 4
>>>> number of threads: 4
>>>> duration: 120 s
>>>> number of transactions actually processed: 1064267
>>>> latency average = 0.451 ms
>>>> tps = 8868.845623 (including connections establishing)
>>>> tps = 8870.858650 (excluding connections establishing)
>>>> -bash-4.1$
>>>> 
>>>> --------------
>>>> Attaching my pgpool.conf;  note, we basically are just using pgpool to deal
>>>> with connection issues, so we don't load balance, and we only have one db
>>>> server configured (the master).  The reason that we are addressing this
>>>> problem is that we currently tried upgrading our production boxes to use
>>>> newer pgpool, and we noticed a huge issue with processing customer data and
>>>> the latency (5 times slower) as you can see from the log:
>>>> 
>>>> not using pgpool:
>>>> Nov 10 11:52:45.889945 [catalogAPI.import             ] : <I> Import of
>>>> VmProducts -  Total Items Imported: 2018, Total Time: 00:00:27 Average Save
>>>> Time: 0.013707411773614
>>>> 
>>>> using pgpool:
>>>> Nov 10 11:31:56.243473 [catalogAPI.import             ] : <I> Import of
>>>> VmProducts -  Total Items Imported: 2018, Total Time: 00:01:53 Average Save
>>>> Time: 0.056271944457169
>>>> 
>>>> we went back to using a EOL version to get the processing time back on
>>>> track but we really would like to use a newer version without this issue.
>>>> 
>>>> attached is my  pgpool.conf file also.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you in advance for your help.
>>>> 
>>>> Tracy Stewart
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Not sure if anyone else has had this issue, we have an old version of
>>>>> pgpool (for postgres 9,1) and when we use this we have NO issues, even



More information about the pgpool-general mailing list