From: | Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments |
Date: | 2003-09-16 13:59:14 |
Message-ID: | 16231.5938.817522.359405@yertle.int.kciLink.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
TL> I was just bugging Marc for some useful data, so I'll ask you too:
TL> could you provide a trace of the pg_restore execution? log_statement
TL> plus log_duration output would do it. I am curious to understand
TL> exactly which steps in the restore are significant time sinks.
Sure... machine isn't gonna do much of anything until 7.4 is released
(or I hear a promise of no more dump/reload).
>> I notice during the restore that the disk throughput triples during
>> the checkpoint.
TL> Hm, better make sure the log includes some indication of when
TL> checkpoints happen.
That it does.
I'll post the results in the next couple of days, as each run takes
about 4 hours ;-)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-16 14:05:06 | Re: Attempt at work around of int4 query won't touch int8 index ... |
Previous Message | Matt Clark | 2003-09-16 08:31:01 | Re: Inconsistent performance |