(Sorry, hit send too soon!)
> I ran pg_dump with the arguments you suggested, and my 4 GB test
> table finished backing up in about 25 minutes, which seems great.
> The only problem is that the resulting backup file was over 9 GB.
> Using -Z2 resulting in a 55 minute 6GB backup.
> Here's my interpretation of those results: the TOAST tables for
> our image files are compressed by Postgres. During the backup,
> pg_dump uncompresses them, and if compression is turned on,
> recompresses the backup. Please correct me if I'm wrong there.
> If we can't find a workable balance using pg_dump, then it looks
> like our next best alternative may be a utility to handle
> filesystem backups, which is a little scary for on-site,
> user-controlled servers.
How about a post-backup compress?
pg_dump -Z0 > uncompressed-backup.sql
mv uncompressed-backup.sql.gz compressed-backup.sql.gz
Your backup is completed in reasonable time, you're just handling
the storage of the backup afterwards, while users can be using the
THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT - Save paper if you don't really need to print this
*******************Confidentiality and Privilege Notice*******************
The material contained in this message is privileged and confidential to
the addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message or
responsible for delivery of the message to such person, you may not copy
or deliver this message to anyone, and you should destroy it and kindly
notify the sender by reply email.
Information in this message that does not relate to the official business
of Weatherbeeta must be treated as neither given nor endorsed by Weatherbeeta.
Weatherbeeta, its employees, contractors or associates shall not be liable
for direct, indirect or consequential loss arising from transmission of this
message or any attachments
In response to
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Tena Sakai||Date: 2008-04-15 00:46:07|
|Subject: Re: Slow pg_dump|
|Previous:||From: Phillip Smith||Date: 2008-04-14 23:22:40|
|Subject: Re: Slow pg_dump |