On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 22:17 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 16:50 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >> If we get all that done by November we'll have done well. And we know > >> that in some cases just this much can lead to reductions in restore > >> time > >> of the order of 80%. > > > > Agreed. Go for it.
> Just as an FYI, by far the number one bottle neck on the multiple work > restores I was doing was CPU. RAM and IO were never the problem. It would be useful to see a full breakdown of those results. There's always a bottleneck on something for any particular task and we shouldn't presume the problem is only on CPU, for all data on all systems. CPU parallelism is the most pressing problem, I agree, but I think we will quickly hit problems without memory limits. But I agree with Andrew that this will be a nice problem to have and not everything is possible by Nov 1. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
