| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | masheed ullah <masheedullah(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jan Karremans <karremans(dot)ja(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thiemo Kellner <thiemo(at)gelassene-pferde(dot)biz>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tablespace size in TB |
| Date: | 2026-05-03 17:04:29 |
| Message-ID: | a7535c8db71d667cf909ac6c77883c956354f048.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, 2026-05-03 at 15:26 +0300, masheed ullah wrote:
> Just to check like Oracle, parallelism works well with multiple tablespaces.
> Moving tables/ indexes to multiple tablespaces to use the parallelism to boost
> the backup speed. With a single tablespace, parallelism will not work.
That may be the case with Oracle, but not with PostgreSQL.
pg_basebackup will not parallelize at all.
I found the following article about backup tools useful:
https://thebuild.com/blog/2026/04/30/after-pgbackrest/
You should consider alternatives to parallelism, since parallelism
will only help up to the limit where the disk is saturated.
One think you should seriously consider is incremental backup,
which would reduce the backup time considerably (but not the
restore time).
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christophe Pettus | 2026-05-03 17:07:26 | Re: Tablespace size in TB |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2026-05-03 16:59:41 | Re: Tablespace size in TB |