Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison
Date: 2008-02-24 18:11:02
Message-ID: 5577.1203876662@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> I would also question the 64KB at a time. Why not a 1024KB (arbitrary)
>> at a time? Is it a resource issue? In the old days when we actually
>> had people trying to run postgresql on 128 and 256 megs of ram, o.k.
>> but now?

> It would be simple enough to change. Try it and see if it actually makes
> a difference. All you have to change is the define of RAW_BUF_SIZE.

Seems unlikely that making it bigger than (a fraction of) L2 cache
would be a smart move.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2008-02-24 18:22:48 Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-02-24 18:08:38 Re: Behaviour of rows containg not-null domains in plpgsql