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

Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments

From: Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments
Date: 2003-09-16 13:59:14
Message-ID: 16231.5938.817522.359405@yertle.int.kciLink.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
>>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

TL> I was just bugging Marc for some useful data, so I'll ask you too:
TL> could you provide a trace of the pg_restore execution?  log_statement
TL> plus log_duration output would do it.  I am curious to understand
TL> exactly which steps in the restore are significant time sinks.

Sure... machine isn't gonna do much of anything until 7.4 is released
(or I hear a promise of no more dump/reload).

>> I notice during the restore that the disk throughput triples during
>> the checkpoint.

TL> Hm, better make sure the log includes some indication of when
TL> checkpoints happen.

That it does.

I'll post the results in the next couple of days, as each run takes
about 4 hours ;-)

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-09-16 14:05:06
Subject: Re: Attempt at work around of int4 query won't touch int8 index ...
Previous:From: Matt ClarkDate: 2003-09-16 08:31:01
Subject: Re: Inconsistent performance

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