Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Douglas J Hunley <doug(at)hunley(dot)homeip(dot)net>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date: 2008-02-19 20:16:42
Message-ID: 7D7AD56B-7AEE-41F5-A2A6-EE1D6B80B656@fastcrypt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


On 19-Feb-08, at 2:35 PM, Douglas J Hunley wrote:

> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 14:28:54 Dave Cramer wrote:
>> shared buffers is *way* too small as is effective cache
>> set them to 2G/6G respectively.
>>
>> Dave
>
> pardon my ignorance, but is this in the context of a restore only?
> or 'in
> general'?

This is the "generally accepted" starting point for a pg db for
production.

>
>
> --
> Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
> http://doug.hunley.homeip.net
>
> Don't let Kirk show you what he affectionately calls the "Captain's
> Log"
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
> choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
> match

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Douglas J Hunley 2008-02-19 20:20:33 Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Previous Message Jeff 2008-02-19 20:07:30 Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?