Re: pg_dump issue

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "mcelroy, tim" <tim(dot)mcelroy(at)bostonstock(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_dump issue
Date: 2006-05-30 16:20:23
Message-ID: 24585.1149006023@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"mcelroy, tim" <tim(dot)mcelroy(at)bostonstock(dot)com> writes:
> The du . -h in $PGDATA showed PROD001 at 9.1G and Prod0002 at 8.8G so
> they're pretty much the same, one would think the smaller one should be
> faster. Yes, the backup files are identical in size.

Hmph. You should carry the "du" analysis down to the subdirectory
level, eg make sure that it's not a case of lots of pg_xlog bloat
balancing out bloat in a different area on the other system. But I
suspect you won't find anything.

> I'm hoping the Engineering staff can find something system related as I
> doubted and still doubt that it's a postgres issue.

I tend to agree. You might try watching "vmstat 1" output while taking
the dumps, so you could at least get a clue whether the problem is CPU
or I/O related ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan Blitz 2006-05-30 17:11:30 Re: Adding and filling new column on big table
Previous Message Francisco Reyes 2006-05-30 15:58:38 Re: Adding and filling new column on big table