| From: | Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(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: | 2008-09-22 16:30:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20080922093024.60b5bbf1@jd-laptop |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:24:28 +0100
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > More importantly, I'm not convinced it's a good idea. It seems more
> > like a footgun that will potentially try to launch thousands of
> > simultaneous restore connections. I should have thought that
> > optimal performance would be reached at some small multiple (say
> > maybe 2?) of the number of CPUs on the server. You could achieve
> > unlimited parallelism by saying something like --jobs=99999, but
> > I'd rather that were done very explicitly instead of as the default
> > value of the parameter.
>
> OK, sounds best.
>
I will not argue vehemently here but I will say that "jobs" doesn't
seem correct. The term "workers" seems more appropriate.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2008-09-22 16:34:32 | Re: parallel pg_restore |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-09-22 16:28:31 | Re: Initial prefetch performance testing |