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

Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments
Date: 2003-09-17 20:15:46
Message-ID: 1063829746.25694.91.camel@camel (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 15:15, Vivek Khera wrote:
> And the winner is... checkpoint_segments.
> 
> Restore of a significanly big database (~19.8GB restored) shows nearly
> no time difference depending on sort_mem when checkpoint_segments is
> large.  There are quite a number of tables and indexes.  The restore
> was done from a pg_dump -Fc dump of one database.
> 
> All tests with 16KB page size, 30k shared buffers, sort_mem=8192, PG
> 7.4b2 on FreeBSD 4.8.

hmm... i wonder what would happen if you pushed your sort_mem higher...
on some of our development boxes and upgrade scripts, i push the
sort_mem to 102400 and sometimes even higher depending on the box. this
really speeds up my restores quit a bit (and is generally safe as i make
sure there isn't any other activity going on at the time)

another thing i like to do is turn of fsync, as if the system crashes in
the middle of reload i'm pretty sure i'd be starting all over anyway...

Robert Treat
-- 
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Matt ClarkDate: 2003-09-17 20:20:02
Subject: Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2003-09-17 20:13:31
Subject: Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?

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