On Feb 19, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 February 2008 15:07:30 Jeff wrote:
>> 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..
>
> fwiw, I +1 this
>
> now that I have a (minor) understanding of what's going on, I'd
> love to do
> something like:
> pg_restore -WM $large_value <normal options>
pg_restore is a postgres client app that uses libpq to connect and,
thus, will pick up anything in your $PGOPTIONS env variable. So,
PGOPTONS="-c maintenance_work_mem=512MB" && pg_restore ....
Erik Jones
DBA | Emma®
erik@myemma.com
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)
Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com
