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

Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

From: Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Douglas J Hunley <doug(at)hunley(dot)homeip(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date: 2008-02-19 20:07:30
Message-ID: F80D4D50-9F3F-4CAA-B01E-B644912126D7@torgo.978.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

>
> maintenance_work_mem, to be more specific.  If that's too small it  
> will
> definitely cripple restore speed.  I'm not sure fsync would make much
> difference, but checkpoint_segments would.  See
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/populate.html#POPULATE-PG- 
> DUMP
>

I wonder if it would be worthwhile if pg_restore could emit a warning  
if maint_work_mem is "low" (start flamewar on what "low" is).

And as an addition to that - allow a cmd line arg to have pg_restore  
bump it before doing its work?  On several occasions I was moving a  
largish table and the COPY part went plenty fast, but when it hit  
index creation it slowed down to a crawl due to low maint_work_mem..

--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
www.dellsmartexitin.com
www.stuarthamm.net






In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2008-02-19 20:16:42
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2008-02-19 19:51:19
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

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