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

Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments
Date: 2003-09-23 13:59:01
Message-ID: 200309231359.h8NDx1A01317@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Vivek Khera wrote:
> And the winner is... checkpoint_segments.
> 
> Restore of a significanly big database (~19.8GB restored) shows nearly
> no time difference depending on sort_mem when checkpoint_segments is
> large.  There are quite a number of tables and indexes.  The restore
> was done from a pg_dump -Fc dump of one database.
> 
> All tests with 16KB page size, 30k shared buffers, sort_mem=8192, PG
> 7.4b2 on FreeBSD 4.8.
> 
> 3 checkpoint_segments restore time: 14983 seconds
> 50 checkpoint_segments restore time: 11537 seconds
> 50 checkpoint_segments, sort_mem 131702 restore time: 11262 seconds

With the new warning about too-frequent checkpoints, people have actual
feedback to encourage them to increase checkpoint_segments.  One issue
is that it is likely to recommend increasing checkpoint_segments during
restore, even if there is no value to it being large during normal
server operation.  Should that be decumented?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Vivek KheraDate: 2003-09-23 14:27:55
Subject: Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments
Previous:From: Nick FankhauserDate: 2003-09-22 20:42:27
Subject: How to make n_distinct more accurate.

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