Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Vivek Khera
Subject Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments
Date
Msg-id 16232.49754.420785.943263@yertle.int.kciLink.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: restore time: sort_mem vs. checkpoing_segments  (Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>)
List pgsql-performance
>>>>> "RT" == Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

RT> hmm... i wonder what would happen if you pushed your sort_mem higher...
RT> on some of our development boxes and upgrade scripts, i push the
RT> sort_mem to 102400 and sometimes even higher depending on the box. this
RT> really speeds up my restores quit a bit (and is generally safe as i make
RT> sure there isn't any other activity going on at the time)

Ok... just two more tests to run, no big deal ;-)


RT> another thing i like to do is turn of fsync, as if the system crashes in
RT> the middle of reload i'm pretty sure i'd be starting all over anyway...

I'll test it and see what happens.  I suspect not a big improvement on
a hardware RAID card with 128Mb backed up cache, though.  But never
say never!

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Matt Clark"
Date:
Subject: Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?
Next
From: "Matt Clark"
Date:
Subject: Re: Is there a reason _not_ to vacuum continuously?