Incredibly slow restore times after 9.0>9.2 upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From jmcdonagh
Subject Incredibly slow restore times after 9.0>9.2 upgrade
Date
Msg-id 1414529739004-5824701.post@n5.nabble.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Incredibly slow restore times after 9.0>9.2 upgrade
Re: Incredibly slow restore times after 9.0>9.2 upgrade
List pgsql-performance
Hi, we have a nightly job that restores current production data to the
development databases in a 'warm spare' database so that if the developers
need fresh data, it's ready during the day. When we moved from 9.0 to 9.2
suddenly the restores began to take from a few hours to more like 15 hours
or so. We're in Amazon EC2, I've tried new EBS volumes, warmed them up,
threw IOPS at them, pretty much all the standard stuff to get more disk
performance.

Here's the thing, the disk isn't saturated. The behavior I'm seeing seems
very odd to me; I'm seeing the source disk which holds the dump saturated by
reads, which is great, but then I just see nothing being written to the
postgres volume. Just nothing happening, then a small burst. There is no
write queue backup on the destination disk either. if I look at
pg_stat_activity I'll see something like:

COPY salesforce_reconciliation (salesforce_id, email, advisor_salesforce_id,
processed) FROM stdin

and even for small tables, that seems to take a very long time even though
the destination disk is almost at 0 utilization.

The dumps are created with pg_dump -Fc and restored with pg_restore -d db -j
2 -O -U postgres PostgreSQL-db.sql.

Is it possible that some default settings were changed from 9.0 to 9.2 that
would cause this kind of behavior? I'm stumped here. Thanks in advance for
any consideration here.



--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Incredibly-slow-restore-times-after-9-0-9-2-upgrade-tp5824701.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: unnecessary sort in the execution plan when doing group by
Next
From: Jeff Chen
Date:
Subject: Sanity checking big select performance