Re: parallel pg_restore

From: "Joshua D(dot) 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 05:17:02
Message-ID: 48D9CD4E.7090200@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 16:50 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> If we get all that done by November we'll have done well. And we know
>> that in some cases just this much can lead to reductions in restore
>> time
>> of the order of 80%.
>
> Agreed. Go for it.
>

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.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Petr Jelinek 2008-09-24 05:18:47 Re: WIP patch: Collation support
Previous Message KaiGai Kohei 2008-09-24 04:54:28 Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep)