Re: Restoring large tables with COPY
От | Marko Kreen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Restoring large tables with COPY |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20011211161936.GA32526@l-t.ee обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Restoring large tables with COPY (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:55:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Marko Kreen <marko@l-t.ee> writes: > > Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I am unable to load > > larger tables (~300k rows) with COPY command that pg_dump by > > default produces. > > I'd like to find out what the problem is, rather than work around it > with such an ugly hack. > > > 1) Too few WAL files. > > - well, increase the wal_files (eg to 32), > > What PG version are you running? 7.1.3 or later should not have a > problem with WAL file growth. 7.1.3 > > 2) Machine runs out of swap, PostgreSQL seems to keep whole TX > > in memory. > > That should not happen either. Could we see the full schema of the > table you are having trouble with? Well, there are several such tables, I will reproduce it, then send the schema. I guess its the first one, but maybe not. postgres gets killed by Linux OOM handler, so I cant tell by messages, which one it was. (hmm, i should probably run it as psql -q -a > log). > > Or shortly: during pg_restore the resource requirements are > > order of magnitude higher than during pg_dump, > > We found some client-side memory leaks in pg_restore recently; is that > what you're talking about? No, its the postgres process thats memory-hungry, it happens with "psql < db.dump" too. If I run a dump thats produced with "pg_dump -m 5000" then it loops between 20M and 10M is much better. (the 10M depends on shared_buffers I guess). -- marko
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: