Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date: 2009-07-21 21:21:57
Message-ID: 6A9D2E5442CE71DC2A7190F4@teje (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
--On Dienstag, Juli 21, 2009 16:49:45 -0400 Andrew Dunstan 
<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

> You just tested COPY, not pg_dump, right? Some pg_dump numbers would be
> interesting, both for text and custom formats.

Plain COPY, yes. I planned testing pg_dump for this round of my review but 
ran out of time unfortunately.

The restore might be limited by xlog (didn't realize that the profile shows 
XLogInsert in  the top four). I'll try to get some additional numbers soon, 
but this won't happen before thursday.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-07-21 21:48:41
Subject: Re: pg_restore --clean vs. large object
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2009-07-21 21:05:57
Subject: Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group