Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: multi-worker pg_restore was: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: multi-worker pg_restore was: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison
Date: 2008-02-26 23:39:53
Message-ID: 10055.1204069193@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> However one observation that I am going to (try) to test is that we are
> spending a lot of time waiting for the last thread to finish.

IOW you haven't balanced the work given to each thread very well?
Or is there something else happening?

How exactly are you allocating tasks to threads in this prototype,
anyway?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2008-02-26 23:49:43
Subject: Re: Two Coverity Scan volunteers needed
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-02-26 23:17:18
Subject: multi-worker pg_restore was: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group