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

Re: pg_dump issue

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "mcelroy, tim" <tim(dot)mcelroy(at)bostonstock(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump issue
Date: 2006-05-30 16:20:23
Message-ID: 24585.1149006023@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
"mcelroy, tim" <tim(dot)mcelroy(at)bostonstock(dot)com> writes:
> The du . -h  in $PGDATA showed PROD001 at 9.1G and Prod0002 at 8.8G so
> they're pretty much the same, one would think the smaller one should be
> faster.  Yes, the backup files are identical in size.

Hmph.  You should carry the "du" analysis down to the subdirectory
level, eg make sure that it's not a case of lots of pg_xlog bloat
balancing out bloat in a different area on the other system.  But I
suspect you won't find anything.

> I'm hoping the Engineering staff can find something system related as I
> doubted and still doubt that it's a postgres issue.

I tend to agree.  You might try watching "vmstat 1" output while taking
the dumps, so you could at least get a clue whether the problem is CPU
or I/O related ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jonathan BlitzDate: 2006-05-30 17:11:30
Subject: Re: Adding and filling new column on big table
Previous:From: Francisco ReyesDate: 2006-05-30 15:58:38
Subject: Re: Adding and filling new column on big table

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