| From: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |
| Date: | 2009-07-30 20:19:58 |
| Message-ID: | C6974E7E.DD80%scott@richrelevance.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 7/30/09 1:15 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> writes:
>> Dump needs to be parallelized or at least pipelined to use more cores. COPY
>> on one thread, compression on another?
>
> We already do that (since compression happens on the pg_dump side).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Well, that isn't what I meant. pg_dump uses CPU outside of compression
doing various things, If that Cpu is 10% as much as the compression, then
splitting them up would yield ~10% gain when CPU bound.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-07-30 20:58:27 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |
| Previous Message | Scott Carey | 2009-07-30 20:16:12 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |