| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Broers <mbroers(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: poor performance when recreating constraints on large tables |
| Date: | 2011-06-08 19:28:56 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=zFRZb5AKXakVxvZqO=QWWCEGKZw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Mike Broers <mbroers(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion, maintenance_work_mem is set to the default of
> 16MB on the host that was taking over an hour as well as on the host that
> was taking less than 10 minutes. I tried setting it to 1GB on the faster
> test server and it reduced the time from around 6-7 minutes to about 3:30.
> this is a good start, if there are any other suggestions please let me know
> - is there any query to check estimated time remaining on long running
> transactions?
Sadly, no. I suspect that coming up with a good algorithm for that is
a suitable topic for a PhD thesis. :-(
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-08 19:30:50 | Re: Oracle v. Postgres 9.0 query performance |
| Previous Message | Tony Capobianco | 2011-06-08 19:03:00 | Re: Oracle v. Postgres 9.0 query performance |