Thomas, > >>>> The test included restoring the same scale 1 TPC-H database with > >>>> setting > >>>> 75 and 100000 page buffers before running the backup, thus the > >>>> database backup had a different page buffers value. > >>>> > >>>> In sum, according to trace: While the 75 page buffers restore took > >>>> 601030ms, the 100000 page buffers restore took 375253ms. > >>> > >>> Could you run gstat and advise on how many data pages are used by > >>> the > >> tables. > >>> > >>> Also, the number of indexes for each table would help. > >>> > > > >> Table stats: > >> > http://www.iblogmanager.com/download/misc/tpch_scale1_table_stats.pn > >> g > > > > Interesting. > > > > Could you try one more test, with cache size = 40,000.
No really, I am simply trying to see what a mid-range cache size would do on the restore performance. That cache size would guarantee that the data pages for tables but 1 would fit into memory for the index create stage of the restore, which would help for tables with multiple indexes. Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
