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

Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date: 2009-07-29 13:53:34
Message-ID: 16987.1248875614@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I don't have time to look right now, but ISTM the original discussion
>> that led to making that patch had ideas about scenarios where it would
>> be faster.

> This is what I've been able to find on a quick look:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-05/msg00678.php

> Sounds like Kevin may want to try renaming some of his indices to
> produce intermingling...

Also, the followup to that message points out that the 8.4.0 code has a
potential O(N^2) dependency on the total number of TOC items in the
dump.  So it might be interesting to check the behavior with very large
numbers of tables/indexes.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2009-07-29 13:57:13
Subject: Re: Filtering dictionaries support and unaccent dictionary
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-29 13:47:14
Subject: Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints

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