Re: parallel pg_restore

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: 2008-09-24 16:04:29
Message-ID: 20080924090429.4262bea4@jd-laptop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:52:52 +0100
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> > 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.

Its in the archives. We had a ginormous discussion about it about 6
months back (-hackers).

Joshua D. Drake

The PostgreSQL Company since 1997:
PostgreSQL Community Conference:
United States PostgreSQL Association:

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2008-09-24 16:16:33 Re: parallel pg_restore
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2008-09-24 16:04:22 Re: hash index improving v3