| From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz, Rauan Maemirov <rauan(at)maemirov(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |
| Date: | 2009-07-30 16:58:20 |
| Message-ID: | 4A71D12C.3070406@pinpointresearch.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>> benchmarks I've seen suggest that with 8 cores you may even see an
>> almost 8x restore speedup
>>
>
> I'm curious what sort of data in what environment showed that ratio.
>
>
Was going on memory from a presentation I watched. Reports on the web
have shown anything from a 3x increase using 8 cores to other
non-detailed reports of "up to" 8x improvement. If you have one big
table, don't expect much if any improvement. If you have lots of smaller
tables/indexes then parallel restore will probably benefit you. This is
all based on the not-atypical assumption that your restore will be CPU
bound. I don't think parallel restore will be much use beyond the point
you hit IO limits.
Cheers,
Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-07-30 16:59:48 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-07-30 16:35:14 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |