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

Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date: 2009-07-21 22:10:05
Message-ID: 4A663CBD.4060202@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bernd Helmle wrote:
> --On Dienstag, Juli 21, 2009 16:49:45 -0400 Andrew Dunstan 
> <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
>> You just tested COPY, not pg_dump, right? Some pg_dump numbers would be
>> interesting, both for text and custom formats.
>
> Plain COPY, yes. I planned testing pg_dump for this round of my review 
> but ran out of time unfortunately.
>
> The restore might be limited by xlog (didn't realize that the profile 
> shows XLogInsert in  the top four). I'll try to get some additional 
> numbers soon, but this won't happen before thursday.
>

If the table is created by the restore job, either use parallel 
pg_restore (-j nn) or use the --single-transaction flag - both will 
ensure that the WAL log is avoided.

For plain COPY, get the same effect using:

    begin;
    truncat foo;
    copy foo ... ;
    commit;

All this assumes that archive_mode is off.

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-21 22:34:16
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-21 21:55:12
Subject: Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints

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