Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Douglas J Hunley
Subject Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date
Msg-id 200802191520.33528.doug@hunley.homeip.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?  (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tuesday 19 February 2008 15:16:42 Dave Cramer wrote:
> On 19-Feb-08, at 2:35 PM, Douglas J Hunley wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 February 2008 14:28:54 Dave Cramer wrote:
> >> shared buffers is *way* too small as is effective cache
> >> set them to 2G/6G respectively.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >
> > pardon my ignorance, but is this in the context of a restore only?  
> > or 'in
> > general'?
>
> This is the "generally accepted" starting point for a pg db for  
> production.

fair enough. I have scheduled this change for the next outage

--
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
http://doug.hunley.homeip.net

"The internet has had no impact on my life whatsoever.com" - anon

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: JP Fletcher
Date:
Subject: Re: Fwd: wal_sync_methods for AIX
Next
From: Douglas J Hunley
Date:
Subject: Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?