Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
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 21:21:57
Message-ID: 6A9D2E5442CE71DC2A7190F4@teje
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--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.

--
Thanks

Bernd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-07-21 21:48:41 Re: pg_restore --clean vs. large object
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-07-21 21:05:57 Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints