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

From Guillaume Cottenceau
Subject Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?
Date
Msg-id 874pc146l1.fsf@mnc.ch
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance
Tom Lane <tgl 'at' sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> Guillaume Cottenceau <gc@mnc.ch> writes:
>> I have made a comparison restoring a production dump with default
>> and large maintenance_work_mem. The speedup improvement here is
>> only of 5% (12'30 => 11'50).
>
>> Apprently, on the restored database, data is 1337 MB[1] and
>> indexes 644 MB[2][2]. Pg is 8.2.3, checkpoint_segments 3,
>> maintenance_work_mem default (16MB) then 512MB, shared_buffers
>> 384MB. It is rather slow disks (Dell's LSI Logic RAID1), hdparm
>> reports 82 MB/sec for reads.
>
> The main thing that jumps out at me is that boosting checkpoint_segments
> would probably help.  I tend to set it to 30 or so (note that this
> corresponds to about 1GB taken up by pg_xlog).

Interestingly, from a bzipped dump, there is no win; however,
from an uncompressed dump, increasing checkpoint_segments from 3
to 30 decreases clock time from 9'50 to 8'30 (15% if I'm
correct).

--
Guillaume Cottenceau

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Mark Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: Re: 4s query want to run faster
Next
From: Moritz Onken
Date:
Subject: store A LOT of 3-tuples for comparisons