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: 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 (view raw or flat)
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!

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Matt ClarkDate: 2003-09-17 20:24:37
Subject: Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?
Previous:From: Matt ClarkDate: 2003-09-17 20:20:02
Subject: Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?

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