X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A673B11F6654 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:46:57 -0300 (ADT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Score: -2.309 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.309 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx2.hub.org [200.46.204.254]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mVVZJRx1Kbu7 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:46:54 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E70711F65F5 for ; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:46:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3D4kpTC009586; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:46:52 -0400 (EDT) To: "patrick keshishian" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg 7.4.x - pg_restore impossibly slow In-reply-to: <53b425b00604121826x213fe2fdmc793e22026469923@mail.gmail.com> References: <53b425b00604121826x213fe2fdmc793e22026469923@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to "patrick keshishian" message dated "Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:26:10 -0700" Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:46:51 -0400 Message-ID: <9585.1144903611@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200604/290 X-Sequence-Number: 18374 "patrick keshishian" writes: > My dev box is much slower hardware than the customer's > server. Even with that difference I expected to be able to > pg_restore the database within one day. But no. Seems a bit odd. Can you narrow down more closely which step of the restore is taking the time? (Try enabling log_statements.) One thought is that kicking up work_mem and vacuum_mem is likely to help for some steps (esp. CREATE INDEX and foreign-key checking). And be sure you've done the usual tuning for write-intensive activity, such as bumping up checkpoint_segments. Turning off fsync wouldn't be a bad idea either. regards, tom lane