From: | Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? |
Date: | 2008-02-22 10:40:42 |
Message-ID: | 874pc146l1.fsf@mnc.ch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane <tgl 'at' sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch> writes:
>> I have made a comparison restoring a production dump with default
>> and large maintenance_work_mem. The speedup improvement here is
>> only of 5% (12'30 => 11'50).
>
>> Apprently, on the restored database, data is 1337 MB[1] and
>> indexes 644 MB[2][2]. Pg is 8.2.3, checkpoint_segments 3,
>> maintenance_work_mem default (16MB) then 512MB, shared_buffers
>> 384MB. It is rather slow disks (Dell's LSI Logic RAID1), hdparm
>> reports 82 MB/sec for reads.
>
> The main thing that jumps out at me is that boosting checkpoint_segments
> would probably help. I tend to set it to 30 or so (note that this
> corresponds to about 1GB taken up by pg_xlog).
Interestingly, from a bzipped dump, there is no win; however,
from an uncompressed dump, increasing checkpoint_segments from 3
to 30 decreases clock time from 9'50 to 8'30 (15% if I'm
correct).
--
Guillaume Cottenceau
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Moritz Onken | 2008-02-22 15:42:29 | store A LOT of 3-tuples for comparisons |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2008-02-22 05:10:18 | Re: 4s query want to run faster |