| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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 14:33:58 |
| Message-ID: | 17758.1248878038@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
> I've got 431 user tables with 578 indexes. How high should I push
> this? Can I just create a bunch of randomly named empty tables with
> primary keys to provoke this effect?
Yeah, just add a bunch of empty tables. Ten thousand or so, perhaps.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-07-29 15:15:30 | date_part()/EXTRACT(second) behaviour with time data type |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2009-07-29 14:29:38 | Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT |