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

From Dave Cramer
Subject Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date
Msg-id 7D7AD56B-7AEE-41F5-A2A6-EE1D6B80B656@fastcrypt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?  (Douglas J Hunley <doug@hunley.homeip.net>)
Responses Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
List pgsql-performance
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.

>
>
> --
> Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
> http://doug.hunley.homeip.net
>
> Don't let Kirk show you what he affectionately calls the "Captain's
> Log"
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>       match


pgsql-performance by date:

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