Re: pg_dump far too slow

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: David Newall <postgresql(at)davidnewall(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: pg_dump far too slow
Date: 2010-03-21 15:39:04
Message-ID: 22117.1269185944@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> On 21/03/2010 9:17 PM, David Newall wrote:
>> and wonder if I should read up on gzip to find why it would work so
>> slowly on a pure text stream, albeit a representation of PDF which
>> intrinsically is fairly compressed.

> In fact, PDF uses deflate compression, the same algorithm used for gzip.
> Gzip-compressing PDF is almost completely pointless -

Yeah. I would bet that the reason for the slow throughput is that gzip
is fruitlessly searching for compressible sequences. It won't find many.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Newall 2010-03-21 15:50:34 Re: pg_dump far too slow
Previous Message Dave Crooke 2010-03-21 14:33:35 Re: pg_dump far too slow