Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Douglas J Hunley <doug(at)hunley(dot)homeip(dot)net>
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 20:16:42
Message-ID: 7D7AD56B-7AEE-41F5-A2A6-EE1D6B80B656@fastcrypt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
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.

>
>
> -- 
> Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
> http://doug.hunley.homeip.net
>
> Don't let Kirk show you what he affectionately calls the "Captain's  
> Log"
>
> ---------------------------(end of  
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>       match


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Douglas J HunleyDate: 2008-02-19 20:20:33
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Previous:From: JeffDate: 2008-02-19 20:07:30
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group