| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <michael(dot)banck(at)credativ(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <bernd(dot)helmle(at)credativ(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums |
| Date: | 2018-12-25 11:12:43 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1812251208050.32444@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Given the speed of verifying checksums and its storage-oriented status, I
> also still think that a (possibly fractional) MB (1,000,000 bytes), or even
> GB, is the right unit to use for reporting this progress. On my laptop (SSD),
> verifying runs at least at 1.26 GB/s (on one small test), there is no point
> in displaying kilobytes progress.
Obviously the file is cached by the system at such speed, but still most
disks should provides dozens of MB per second of read bandwidth. If GB is
used, it should use fractional display (eg 1.25 GB) though.
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-12-25 11:47:07 | Re: pg_dump multi VALUES INSERT |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-12-25 11:04:16 | Re: Progress reporting for pg_verify_checksums |