Re: pg_dump & performance degradation

At 01:06 PM 8/1/00 +1000, Philip Warner wrote:

>I agree; it's definitely a non-critical feature. But then, it is only 80
>lines of code in one place (including 28 non-code lines). I am not totally
>happy with the results it produces, so I have no objection to removing it
>all. I just need some more general feedback...

Have you tried pg_dump on a multi-processor machine, which most serious
database-backed websites run on these days? Do you see the same performance
degradation? My site runs on a dual P450 with RAID 1 LVD disks, and cost
me exactly $2100 to build (would've been less if I'd laid off the extra
cooling fans!)

If not, the target audience has shrunk even further. Any way you cut it,
backups want to be scheduled for low-volume hours and even internationally
popular sites don't have steady volume for each hour of the 24 hour day.

(after all, some hours of the day that correspond to the normal "traffic
jam" hours fall mostly in areas like the south pacific where few people
live, even if each and every one is an avid user the load they put on
popular sites is bound to be low compared to, say, the eastern seaboard
or Europe)

If your site's so popular that it has to be perky 24 hours a day for a
rabid base of worldwide fans, then you can either:

1. afford to invest in hardware (if not, you're not asking enough of your
fans)
2. afford to invest in other improvements in your website.

Doing such unheard of things to a utility (again, is there any Unix or NT
or VMS etc utility that has such a user option?) makes me think you're
finger-pointing at the wrong part of your service.

But, then again, I'm the kinda guy that looks for simple solutions to simple
problems...

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.