Re: pg_restore taking 4 hours!
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_restore taking 4 hours! |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200412131043.28465.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pg_restore taking 4 hours! (Rodrigo Carvalhaes <grupos@carvalhaes.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_restore taking 4 hours!
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Vivek, > Do I need a correspondingly large checkpoint timeout then? Or does > that matter much? Yes, you do. > And does this advice apply if the pg_xlog is on the same RAID partition > (mine currently is not, but perhaps will be in the future) Not as much, but it's still a good idea to serialize the load. With too few segments, you get a pattern like: Fill up segments Write to database Recycle segments Fill up segments Write to database Recycle segments etc. Compared to doing it in one long run of a single cycle, considerble efficiency is lost. With a proper 2-array setup, the segments become like a write buffer for the database, and you want that buffer as large as you can afford in order to prevent buffer cycling from interrupting database writes. BTW, for members of the studio audience, checkpoint_segments of 256 is about 8GB. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: