| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2008-02-25 22:05:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1203977158.7878.59.camel@dogma.ljc.laika.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:28 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:17:10 -0800
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> > > I would personally rather keep it simple, hard core, and data
> > > shoving as possible without any issue with scheduling etc..
> > >
> >
> > Just a thought. After it's actually implemented it won't be hard to
> > see if it's a win.
>
> Yep :) but as a note:
>
> I am currently testing on the data set that is giving us all these
> issues. Previously we were pushing ~ 22G an hour over a single thread.
> I am currently pushing ~ 28G every 16 minutes over 6 threads.
>
> With 30-40% IO wait.
That begs the question: what about 12 threads?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2008-02-25 22:11:16 | Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-02-25 22:03:35 | Re: libpq.rc make rule |