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

Re: pg_dump far too slow

From: David Newall <postgresql(at)davidnewall(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, 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 15:50:34
Message-ID: 4BA6404A.5040009@davidnewall.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Tom Lane wrote:
> I would bet that the reason for the slow throughput is that gzip
> is fruitlessly searching for compressible sequences.  It won't find many.
>   


Indeed, I didn't expect much reduction in size, but I also didn't expect 
a four-order of magnitude increase in run-time (i.e. output at 
10MB/second going down to 500KB/second), particularly as my estimate was 
based on gzipping a previously gzipped file.  I think it's probably 
pathological data, as it were.  Might even be of interest to gzip's 
maintainers.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dave CrookeDate: 2010-03-21 17:04:00
Subject: GZIP of pre-zipped output
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-03-21 15:39:04
Subject: Re: pg_dump far too slow

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