On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 17:18 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Le samedi 01 mars 2008, Simon Riggs a écrit : > > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 13:08 +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > > > I'd like to have some feedback about the new version, in term of bugs > > > encountered and performance limitations (is pgloader up to what you would > > > expect a multi-threaded loader to be at?) > > > > Maybe post to general as well if you don't get any replies here. > > New feature is very important for us. > > So, here's yet another mail about pgloader new 2.3.0 version, please forgive > me for being over zealous here if that's how I appear to be to you... > > Those links will give you detailed information about the new release. > http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgloader > http://pgfoundry.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=1283 > http://pgloader.projects.postgresql.org/#_parallel_loading Sounds good. Not sure when or why I would want an rrqueue_size larger than copy_every, and less sounds very strange. Can we get away with it being the same thing in all cases? Do you have some basic performance numbers? It would be good to understand the overhead of the parallelism on a large file with 1, 2 and 4 threads. Would be good to see if synchronous_commit = off helped speed things up as well. Presumably -V and -T still work when we go parallel, but just issue one query? -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
