| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |
| Date: | 2008-02-21 18:09:32 |
| Message-ID: | 13059.1203617372@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch> writes:
> I have made a comparison restoring a production dump with default
> and large maintenance_work_mem. The speedup improvement here is
> only of 5% (12'30 => 11'50).
> Apprently, on the restored database, data is 1337 MB[1] and
> indexes 644 MB[2][2]. Pg is 8.2.3, checkpoint_segments 3,
> maintenance_work_mem default (16MB) then 512MB, shared_buffers
> 384MB. It is rather slow disks (Dell's LSI Logic RAID1), hdparm
> reports 82 MB/sec for reads.
The main thing that jumps out at me is that boosting checkpoint_segments
would probably help. I tend to set it to 30 or so (note that this
corresponds to about 1GB taken up by pg_xlog).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2008-02-21 19:17:40 | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Cottenceau | 2008-02-21 17:28:58 | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |