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

Re: pg_dump additional options for performance

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Date: 2008-07-26 16:56:42
Message-ID: 1217091402.3894.1185.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Sat, 2008-07-26 at 12:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 19:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The key problem is that pg_restore is broken:
> > The key capability here is being able to split the dump into multiple
> > pieces. The equivalent capability on restore is *not* required, because
> > once the dump has been split the restore never needs to be.
> This argument is nonsense.  
> The typical usage of this capability, IMHO, will be

Arghh! That's not my stated use case!?#*!

I want to dump tables separately for performance reasons. There are
documented tests showing 100% gains using this method. There is no gain
adding this to pg_restore. There is a gain to be had - parallelising
index creation, but this patch doesn't provide parallelisation.

Anyway, clearly time for me to stop and have a break. 

 Simon Riggs 
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-07-26 16:59:10
Subject: Re: pg_dump(all) library
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-26 16:46:48
Subject: Re: pg_dump(all) library

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-26 17:43:06
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2008-07-26 16:43:55
Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group