Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Greg Smith" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Takahiro Itagaki" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2010-01-22 21:05:46
Message-ID: 16869.1264194346@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Do you have the opportunity to try an experiment on hardware
>> similar to what you're running that on?  Create a database with 7
>> million tables and see what the dump/restore times are like, and
>> whether pg_dump/pg_restore appear to be CPU-bound or
>> memory-limited when doing it.
 
> If these can be empty (or nearly empty) tables, I can probably swing
> it as a background task.  You didn't need to match the current 1.3
> TB database size I assume?

Empty is fine.

>> If they aren't, we could conclude that millions of TOC entries
>> isn't a problem.
 
> I'd actually be rather more concerned about the effects on normal
> query plan times, or are you confident that won't be an issue?

This is only a question of what happens internally in pg_dump and
pg_restore --- I'm not suggesting we change anything on the database
side.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-01-22 21:13:30
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-01-22 21:02:16
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group