| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Kumar, Sachin" <ssetiya(at)amazon(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
| Date: | 2023-12-27 15:18:21 |
| Message-ID: | 2495251.1703690301@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Applying all 4 patches, I also see good performance improvement.
> With more Large Objects, although pg_dump improved significantly,
> pg_restore is now comfortably an order of magnitude faster.
Yeah. The key thing here is that pg_dump can only parallelize
the data transfer, while (with 0004) pg_restore can parallelize
large object creation and owner-setting as well as data transfer.
I don't see any simple way to improve that on the dump side,
but I'm not sure we need to. Zillions of empty objects is not
really the use case to worry about. I suspect that a more realistic
case with moderate amounts of data in the blobs would make pg_dump
look better.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2023-12-27 15:29:01 | Re: Statistics Import and Export |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-12-27 15:05:28 | Re: Should we remove -Wdeclaration-after-statement? |