On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > Really? Here's what I just got on a severely under-resourced SL6 VM: > > 1.5s doesn't seem terribly slow.
You are right. Come to think of it, I do seem to recall that initdb got some speed improvements; these were in 8.3 days, I think. Here are my numbers for comparison, in some various forms: env time /usr/lib/postgresql/9.1/bin/initdb /tmp/foo 0.94user 0.28system 0:01.87elapsed 64%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 79920maxresident)k 14288inputs+85144outputs (36major+66622minor)pagefaults 0swaps env time eatmydata /usr/lib/postgresql/9.1/bin/initdb /tmp/foo 0.90user 0.27system 0:01.26elapsed 92%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 79984maxresident)k 856inputs+85144outputs (0major+67202minor)pagefaults 0swaps env time /usr/lib/postgresql/9.1/bin/initdb /dev/shm/blah 0.90user 0.19system 0:01.15elapsed 95%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 79984maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+67192minor)pagefaults 0swaps Retracted. -- fdr -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
