Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

From: Douglas J Hunley <doug(at)hunley(dot)homeip(dot)net>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date: 2008-02-19 20:20:33
Message-ID: 200802191520.33528.doug@hunley.homeip.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tuesday 19 February 2008 15:16:42 Dave Cramer wrote:
> On 19-Feb-08, at 2:35 PM, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 February 2008 14:28:54 Dave Cramer wrote:
> >> shared buffers is *way* too small as is effective cache
> >> set them to 2G/6G respectively.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >
> > pardon my ignorance, but is this in the context of a restore only?  
> > or 'in
> > general'?
>
> This is the "generally accepted" starting point for a pg db for  
> production.

fair enough. I have scheduled this change for the next outage

--
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
http://doug.hunley.homeip.net

"The internet has had no impact on my life whatsoever.com" - anon

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message JP Fletcher 2008-02-19 20:21:16 Re: Fwd: wal_sync_methods for AIX
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2008-02-19 20:16:42 Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?