On Feb 19, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 15:07:30 Jeff wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> maintenance_work_mem, to be more specific. If that's too small it
>>> definitely cripple restore speed. I'm not sure fsync would make
>>> difference, but checkpoint_segments would. See
>> 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..
> fwiw, I +1 this
> now that I have a (minor) understanding of what's going on, I'd
> love to do
> something like:
> pg_restore -WM $large_value <normal options>
pg_restore is a postgres client app that uses libpq to connect and,
thus, will pick up anything in your $PGOPTIONS env variable. So,
PGOPTONS="-c maintenance_work_mem=512MB" && pg_restore ....
DBA | Emma®
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Dan Langille||Date: 2008-02-19 21:58:19|
|Subject: Re: wal_sync_methods for AIX|
|Previous:||From: Douglas J Hunley||Date: 2008-02-19 20:55:43|
|Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?|