Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAAF6331A0
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:42:27 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 48185-10 for
	<pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:42:23 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from easy2.in-chemnitz.de (easy2.in-chemnitz.de [88.198.17.232])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF0566330C8
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:42:23 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by easy2.in-chemnitz.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA08847000F
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:42:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from easy2.in-chemnitz.de ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (easy.in-chemnitz.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id MzWUmPOww535 for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:42:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: by easy2.in-chemnitz.de (Postfix, from userid 1013)
	id D8C8247000A; Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:42:19 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:42:19 +0100
From: Tino Schwarze <postgresql@tisc.de>
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Subject: Tuning postgres for fast restore?
Message-ID: <20090221004219.GA10127@easy2.in-chemnitz.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200902/159
X-Sequence-Number: 31380

Hi there,

I'm going to pg_restore a database dump of about 220 GiB (uncompressed,
but most data is BLOBs). The machine has 8 GiB of memory and 8 cores.
Is there any advice to speed up restoring, postgresql.conf-wise?

I already have a script which does the data loading and index creation
in parallel. I'm looking for advice regarding shared_mem, work_mem and
maintenance_mem - shall I raise them?

I currently have:
shared_buffers = 240MB
work_mem = 4096               # no units here, d'oh!
maintenance_work_mem = 150000

Thanks!

Tino.

-- 
"What we nourish flourishes." - "Was wir nähren erblüht."

www.lichtkreis-chemnitz.de
www.craniosacralzentrum.de