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
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 |