> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, Jeff's experiments indicated that the remaining bottleneck is lock
>>>> management in the server. What I fixed so far on the pg_dump side
>>>> should be enough to let partial dumps run at reasonable speed even if
>>>> the whole database contains many tables. But if psql is taking
>>>> AccessShareLock on lots of tables, there's still a problem.
>>>
>>> Ok, I modified the part of pg_dump where tremendous number of LOCK
>>> TABLE are issued. I replace them with single LOCK TABLE with multiple
>>> tables. With 100k tables LOCK statements took 13 minutes in total, now
>>> it only takes 3 seconds. Comments?
>>
>> Could you rebase this? I tried doing it myself, but must have messed
>> it up because it got slower rather than faster.
>
> OK, I found the problem. In fixing a merge conflict, I had it execute
> the query every time it appended a table, rather than just at the end.
>
> With my proposed patch in place, I find that for a full default dump
> your patch is slightly faster with < 300,000 tables, and slightly
> slower with > 300,000. The differences are generally <2% in either
> direction. When it comes to back-patching and partial dumps, I'm not
> really sure what to test.
>
> For the record, there is still a quadratic performance on the server,
> albeit with a much smaller constant factor than the Reassign one. It
> is in get_tabstat_entry. I don't know if is worth working on that in
> isolation--if PG is going to try to accommodate 100s of thousands of
> table, there probably needs to be a more general way to limit the
> memory used by all aspects of the rel caches.
I would like to test your patch and w/without my patch. Could you
please give me the patches? Or do you have your own git repository?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp