Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date: 2009-07-20 06:30:36
Message-ID: 4A640F0C.60605@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kevin,

> It would be hard to schedule the requisite time on our biggest web
> machines, but I assume an 8 core 64GB machine would give meaningful
> results. Any sense what numbers of parallel jobs I should use for
> tests? I would be tempted to try 1 (with the -1 switch), 8, 12, and
> 16 -- maybe keep going if 16 beats 12.

Personally, I wouldn't go over the number of cores. But if you do find
some gain that way, I'd be very interested to know it.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2009-07-20 06:58:56 Re: fix: plpgsql: return query and dropped columns problem
Previous Message Nikhil Sontakke 2009-07-20 06:12:26 Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema