From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |
Date: | 2009-07-29 01:39:26 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070907281839r5afa9da9i42c625ffaa1547c8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Kevin
Grittner<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> So far, all tests have shown no difference in performance based on
>> the patch;
>
> My testing to that point had been on a "big" machine with 16 CPUs and
> 128 GB RAM and dozens of spindles. Last night I tried with a dual
> core machine with 4 GB RAM and 5 spindles in RAID 5. Still no
> difference with the patch.
>
> Any suggestions besides the foreign keys? Should 488 FKs be enough to
> matter here? (Barring better suggestions, I'll try the small machine
> again tonight with the default configuration, rather than the
> optimized one.)
The other possibility here is that this just doesn't work. :-)
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-29 01:52:29 | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |
Previous Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2009-07-28 23:29:00 | Re: SE-PostgreSQL Specifications |