Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

[Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org>]

On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> maintenance_work_mem, to be more specific.  If that's too small it  
> will
> definitely cripple restore speed.  I'm not sure fsync would make much
> difference, but checkpoint_segments would.  See
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/populate.html#POPULATE-PG- 
> DUMP

I wonder if it would be worthwhile if pg_restore could emit a warning  
if maint_work_mem is "low" (start flamewar on what "low" is).

And as an addition to that - allow a cmd line arg to have pg_restore  
bump it before doing its work?  On several occasions I was moving a  
largish table and the COPY part went plenty fast, but when it hit  
index creation it slowed down to a crawl due to low maint_work_mem..

--
Jeff Trout <jeff(at)jefftrout(dot)com>
www.dellsmartexitin.com
www.stuarthamm.net