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

Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS
Date: 2007-05-25 21:28:43
Message-ID: 22234.1180128523@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Erik Jones wrote:
>> And, to finish up, is there any reason that pg_restore couldn't  
>> already work with separate processes working in parallel?

> The problem is that the ordering of objects in the dump is the only
> thing that makes the dump consistent with regards to the dependencies of
> objects.  So pg_restore cannot make any assumptions of parallelisability
> of the restoration process of objects in the dump.

That's true at the level of DDL operations, but AFAIK we could
parallelize table-loading and index-creation steps pretty effectively
--- and that's where all the time goes.

A more interesting question is what sort of hardware you need for that
actually to be a win, though.  Loading a few tables in parallel sounds
like an ideal recipe for oversaturating your disk bandwidth...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2007-05-25 21:44:19
Subject: Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2007-05-25 21:01:13
Subject: Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS

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