-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:13:35 -0500
Jeff Trout <threshar@threshar.is-a-geek.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Gregory Stark wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure what you guys' expectations are, but if you're
> > restoring 5
> > minutes worth of database traffic in 8 seconds I wouldn't be
> > complaining.
> >
> > Depending on your transaction mix and what percentage of it is
> > read- only
> > select queries you might reasonably expect the restore to take as
> > long as it
> > took to generate them...
> >
>
> in this case it was 24hrs of data - about 1500 wal segments. During
> this time the machine was nearly complete idle and there wasn't very
> much IO going on (few megs/sec).
Exactly. Which is the point I am making. Five minutes of transactions
is nothing (speaking generally).. In short, if we are in recovery, and
we are not saturated the I/O and at least a single CPU, there is a huge
amount of optimization *somewhere* to be done.
Tom is also correct, we should test this on 8.3.
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHYCerATb/zqfZUUQRArdeAJ9D89Qi7xCqFDUOpUgKQ/QigwHNPwCdFQfN
Dl8svUbMi40WExyd93MCIzw=
=MEhU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----