| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel pg_restore |
| Date: | 2008-09-24 06:52:52 |
| Message-ID: | 1222239172.4445.500.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 22:17 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 16:50 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >> If we get all that done by November we'll have done well. And we know
> >> that in some cases just this much can lead to reductions in restore
> >> time
> >> of the order of 80%.
> >
> > Agreed. Go for it.
> Just as an FYI, by far the number one bottle neck on the multiple work
> restores I was doing was CPU. RAM and IO were never the problem.
It would be useful to see a full breakdown of those results.
There's always a bottleneck on something for any particular task and we
shouldn't presume the problem is only on CPU, for all data on all
systems. CPU parallelism is the most pressing problem, I agree, but I
think we will quickly hit problems without memory limits. But I agree
with Andrew that this will be a nice problem to have and not everything
is possible by Nov 1.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-24 07:27:44 | Re: Hot Standby Design |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2008-09-24 06:36:56 | Re: Common Table Expressions (WITH RECURSIVE) patch |