| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |
| Date: | 2009-07-20 06:30:36 |
| Message-ID: | 4A640F0C.60605@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin,
> It would be hard to schedule the requisite time on our biggest web
> machines, but I assume an 8 core 64GB machine would give meaningful
> results. Any sense what numbers of parallel jobs I should use for
> tests? I would be tempted to try 1 (with the -1 switch), 8, 12, and
> 16 -- maybe keep going if 16 beats 12.
Personally, I wouldn't go over the number of cores. But if you do find
some gain that way, I'd be very interested to know it.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-07-20 06:58:56 | Re: fix: plpgsql: return query and dropped columns problem |
| Previous Message | Nikhil Sontakke | 2009-07-20 06:12:26 | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |