Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date
Msg-id 4A6EC4CE0200002500028E0C@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote: 
> So far, all tests have shown no difference in performance based on
> the patch;
My testing to that point had been on a "big" machine with 16 CPUs and
128 GB RAM and dozens of spindles.  Last night I tried with a dual
core machine with 4 GB RAM and 5 spindles in RAID 5.  Still no
difference with the patch.
Any suggestions besides the foreign keys?  Should 488 FKs be enough to
matter here?  (Barring better suggestions, I'll try the small machine
again tonight with the default configuration, rather than the
optimized one.)
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Tao Ma"
Date:
Subject: question about the _SPI_save_plan() and plan cache
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] new digest datatypes, or generic fixed-len hex types?