Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date: 2009-05-05 14:00:37
Message-ID: 15219.1241532037@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> writes:
> From time to time we had complains about slow dump of large tables with
> bytea columns, people often complaining about a) size and b) duration of
> the dump.

> That latter occurred recently to me, a customer would like to dump large
> tables (approx. 12G in size) with pg_dump, but he was annoyed about the
> performance. Using COPY BINARY reduced the time (unsurprisingly) to a
> fraction (from 12 minutes to 3 minutes).

Seems like the right response might be some micro-optimization effort on
byteaout.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-05-05 14:05:47 Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Previous Message Andres Freund 2009-05-05 13:19:50 Re: conditional dropping of columns/constraints