restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments
От | Vivek Khera |
---|---|
Тема | restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16230.4066.565194.387700@yertle.int.kciLink.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments
Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments |
Список | pgsql-performance |
And the winner is... checkpoint_segments. Restore of a significanly big database (~19.8GB restored) shows nearly no time difference depending on sort_mem when checkpoint_segments is large. There are quite a number of tables and indexes. The restore was done from a pg_dump -Fc dump of one database. All tests with 16KB page size, 30k shared buffers, sort_mem=8192, PG 7.4b2 on FreeBSD 4.8. 3 checkpoint_segments restore time: 14983 seconds 50 checkpoint_segments restore time: 11537 seconds 50 checkpoint_segments, sort_mem 131702 restore time: 11262 seconds There's an initdb between each test. For reference, the restore with 8k page size, 60k buffers, 8192 sort_mem and 3 checkpoint buffers was 14777 seconds. It seems for restore that a larger number of checkpoint buffers is the key, especially when dealing with large numbers of rows in a table. I notice during the restore that the disk throughput triples during the checkpoint. The postgres data partition is on a 14-spindle hardware RAID5 on U320 SCSI disks.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: