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

bytea vs. pg_dump

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date: 2009-05-05 10:39:23
Message-ID: 5936D36FFD98DB6180C12A79@teje (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
>From time to time we had complains about slow dump of large tables with 
bytea columns, people often complaining about a) size and b) duration of 
the dump.

That latter occurred recently to me, a customer would like to dump large 
tables (approx. 12G in size) with pg_dump, but he was annoyed about the 
performance. Using COPY BINARY reduced the time (unsurprisingly) to a 
fraction (from 12 minutes to 3 minutes).

As discussed in the past[1], we didn't implement pg_dump to support BINARY 
to preserve portability and version independence of dumps using pg_dump. I 
would like to bring that topic up again, since implementing an option like 
--binary-copy seems interesting in use cases, where portability and version 
issues doesn't matter and someone wants to have a fast COPY of his 
documents . This would make this task much easier, especially in the 
described case, where the customer has to dump referenced tables as well.

Another approach would be to just dump bytea columns in binary format only 
(not sure how doable that is, though).

Opinions, again?


[1] <http://archives.postgresql.org//pgsql-hackers/2007-12/msg00139.php>
-- 
  Thanks

                    Bernd

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Matthew WakelingDate: 2009-05-05 11:24:42
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] high shared buffer and swap
Previous:From: Laurent LabordeDate: 2009-05-05 10:20:01
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] high shared buffer and swap

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