On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:31 AM Jason Ralph
wrote:
> The end of month process that we run at my company was a pg_dump and
> pg_restore of 3 tables, these tables are around ~(400GB) each. The entire
> process on pg93 took 29 hours.
>
> The index creation portion of the restore on the target pg9.
er = 3 # taken from max_parallel_workers
max_parallel_workers = 6
Jason Ralph
-Original Message-
From: Peter Geoghegan
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2019 1:26 AM
To: Jason Ralph
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PG11 Parallel Thanks!!
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:41 AM
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:41 AM Jason Ralph wrote:
> Since pg11 on both the target and source, the run time has decreased a lot, I
> chalk it up to the parallel index creations in pg11 which was a very time
> consuming process on pg9.3.
> The process has finished almost 10 hours earlier than pg93
Jason Ralph writes:
> I wanted to drop a quick note thanking the developers who have
> contributed to Postgres. I have recently upgraded our production PG
> instances from pg9.3 to pg11.
>
> We do a lot of table syncs, and we have one process at the end of the
> month that syncs 3 very large ta
