| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
| Date: | 2012-08-30 20:44:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20120830204433.GW8753@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 09:20:43AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> Yeah, Jeff's experiments indicated that the remaining bottleneck is lock
> >> management in the server. What I fixed so far on the pg_dump side
> >> should be enough to let partial dumps run at reasonable speed even if
> >> the whole database contains many tables. But if psql is taking
> >> AccessShareLock on lots of tables, there's still a problem.
> >
> > Ok, I modified the part of pg_dump where tremendous number of LOCK
> > TABLE are issued. I replace them with single LOCK TABLE with multiple
> > tables. With 100k tables LOCK statements took 13 minutes in total, now
> > it only takes 3 seconds. Comments?
>
> Shall I commit to master and all supported branches?
Was this applied?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-30 20:48:45 | Re: Fix for gistchoose |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-08-30 20:40:48 | Re: We're not lax enough about maximum time zone offset from UTC |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-30 20:51:56 | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2012-08-30 18:13:45 | Re: Question about caching on full table scans |