| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergio Gabriel Rodriguez <sgrodriguez(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: problems with large objects dump |
| Date: | 2012-09-20 16:33:21 |
| Message-ID: | 24248.1348158801@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Sergio Gabriel Rodriguez <sgrodriguez(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> You wouldn't happen to be
>> trying to use a 9.0 or later pg_dump would you? Exactly what 8.4.x
>> release is this, anyway?
> Tom, thanks for replying, yes, we tried it with postgres postgres 9.1 and
> 9.2 and the behavior is exactly the same. The production version is 8.4.9
Well, I see three different fixes for O(N^2) pg_dump performance
problems in the 8.4.x change logs since 8.4.9, so you're a bit behind
the times there. However, all of those fixes would have been in 9.2.0,
so if you saw no improvement with a 9.2.0 pg_dump then the problem is
something else. Can you put together a test case for somebody else to
try, or try to locate the bottleneck yourself using oprofile or perf?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jon Leighton | 2012-09-21 10:46:58 | Cost of opening and closing an empty transaction |
| Previous Message | Sergio Gabriel Rodriguez | 2012-09-20 15:53:10 | Re: problems with large objects dump |