Re: Performance of pg_dump on PGSQL 8.0

From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)lusis(dot)org
Cc: PGSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance of pg_dump on PGSQL 8.0
Date: 2006-06-14 16:44:10
Message-ID: 1150303450.26538.9.camel@state.g2switchworks.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 09:47, John E. Vincent wrote:
> -- this is the third time I've tried sending this and I never saw it get
> through to the list. Sorry if multiple copies show up.
>
> Hi all,

BUNCHES SNIPPED

> work_mem = 1048576 ( I know this is high but you should see some of our
> sorts and aggregates)

Ummm. That's REALLY high. You might want to consider lowering the
global value here, and then crank it up on a case by case basis, like
during nighttime report generation. Just one or two queries could
theoretically run your machine out of memory right now. Just put a "set
work_mem=1000000" in your script before the big query runs.

> We're inserting around 3mil rows a night if you count staging, info, dim
> and fact tables. The vacuum issue is a whole other problem but right now
> I'm concerned about just the backup on the current hardware.
>
> I've got some space to burn so I could go to an uncompressed backup and
> compress it later during the day.

That's exactly what we do. We just do a normal backup, and have a
script that gzips anything in the backup directory that doesn't end in
.gz... If you've got space to burn, as you say, then use it at least a
few days to see how it affects backup speeds.

Seeing as how you're CPU bound, most likely the problem is just the
compressed backup.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2006-06-14 17:04:18 Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-06-14 15:51:47 Re: Performance of pg_dump on PGSQL 8.0