Re: multi-worker pg_restore was: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(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: multi-worker pg_restore was: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison
Date: 2008-02-26 23:39:53
Message-ID: 10055.1204069193@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> However one observation that I am going to (try) to test is that we are
> spending a lot of time waiting for the last thread to finish.

IOW you haven't balanced the work given to each thread very well?
Or is there something else happening?

How exactly are you allocating tasks to threads in this prototype,
anyway?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2008-02-26 23:49:43 Re: Two Coverity Scan volunteers needed
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2008-02-26 23:17:18 multi-worker pg_restore was: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison