| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_dump: lock tables in batches |
| Date: | 2022-12-07 17:28:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4040032.1670434083@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-12-07 10:44:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have a strong sense of deja vu here. I'm pretty sure I experimented
>> with this idea last year and gave up on it. I don't recall exactly
>> why, but either it didn't show any meaningful performance improvement
>> for me or there was some actual downside (that I'm not remembering
>> right now).
> IIRC the case we were looking at around 989596152 were CPU bound workloads,
> rather than latency bound workloads. It'd not be surprising to have cases
> where batching LOCKs helps latency, but not CPU bound.
Yeah, perhaps. Anyway my main point is that I don't want to just assume
this is a win; I want to see some actual performance tests.
> I wonder if "manual" batching is the best answer. Alexander, have you
> considered using libpq level pipelining?
I'd be a bit nervous about how well that works with older servers.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-12-07 17:34:27 | Re: Error-safe user functions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-12-07 17:20:55 | Re: Error-safe user functions |