| From: | Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments |
| Date: | 2003-09-17 20:21:46 |
| Message-ID: | 16232.49754.420785.943263@yertle.int.kciLink.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>>>>> "RT" == Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
RT> hmm... i wonder what would happen if you pushed your sort_mem higher...
RT> on some of our development boxes and upgrade scripts, i push the
RT> sort_mem to 102400 and sometimes even higher depending on the box. this
RT> really speeds up my restores quit a bit (and is generally safe as i make
RT> sure there isn't any other activity going on at the time)
Ok... just two more tests to run, no big deal ;-)
RT> another thing i like to do is turn of fsync, as if the system crashes in
RT> the middle of reload i'm pretty sure i'd be starting all over anyway...
I'll test it and see what happens. I suspect not a big improvement on
a hardware RAID card with 128Mb backed up cache, though. But never
say never!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matt Clark | 2003-09-17 20:24:37 | Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously? |
| Previous Message | Matt Clark | 2003-09-17 20:20:02 | Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously? |