Re: Pg_upgrade performance

From: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pg_upgrade performance
Date: 2010-09-21 05:44:47
Message-ID: 4C98464F.7020406@catalyst.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 21/09/10 16:14, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> I've been having a look at this guy, trying to get a handle on how
> much down time it will save.
>
> As a quick check, I tried upgrading a cluster with a 1 non default db
> containing a scale 100 pgbench schema:
>
> - pg_upgrade : 57 s
> - pgdump/pg_restore : 154 s
>
> So, a reasonable saving all up - but I guess still a sizable chunk of
> downtime in the case of a big database to copy the user relation files.
>
> I notice there is a "link" option that would be quicker I guess -
> would it make sense to have a "move" option too? (perhaps with
> pg_upgrade writing an "un-move" script to move them back just in case).

Replying to this - looking more carefully at what the --link option
does, it is clear that this is in fact covered. Sorry for the (my)
confusion. For completeness, with this option the upgrade is
substantially faster:

- pg_upgrade (link): 12 s

regards

Mark

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2010-09-21 05:59:53 Re: Any reason why the default_with_oids GUC is still there?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-09-21 05:06:51 Re: .gitignore files, take two