Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "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 14:25:06
Message-ID: 4A7015720200002500028F39@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2009-07-29 14:29:38 Re: ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2009-07-29 14:18:32 Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic