Re: pg_restore taking 4 hours!
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_restore taking 4 hours! |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 27280.1102965664@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_restore taking 4 hours! (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > 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. Actually I think the problem is specifically that you get checkpoints too often if either checkpoint_timeout or checkpoint_segments is too small. A checkpoint is expensive both directly (the I/O it causes) and indirectly (because the first update of a particular data page after a checkpoint causes the whole page to be logged in WAL). So keeping them spread well apart is a Good Thing, as long as you understand that a wider checkpoint spacing implies a longer time to recover if you do suffer a crash. I think 8.0's bgwriter will considerably reduce the direct cost of a checkpoint (since not so many pages will be dirty when the checkpoint happens) but it won't do a thing for the indirect cost. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: