Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David Wall
Тема Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore
Дата
Msg-id 53B640E1.2030809@computer.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore  (Eduardo Morras <emorrasg@yahoo.es>)
Ответы Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore  (Bosco Rama <postgres@boscorama.com>)
Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore  (Bosco Rama <postgres@boscorama.com>)
Список pgsql-general
On 7/3/2014 11:47 AM, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> No, there's nothing wrong. All transparent compressed objects stored
> in database, toast, lo, etc.. is transparently decompressed while
> pg_dump access them and then you gzip it again. I don't know why it
> doesn't dump the compressed data directly.

That sounds odd, but if pg_dump decompresses the large objects and then
I gzip them on backup, doesn't the same more or less happen in reverse
when I pg_restore them?  I mean, I gunzip the backup and then pg_restore
must compress the large objects when it writes them back.

It just seems odd that pg_dump is slower than pg_restore to me. Most
grumblings I read about suggest that pg_restore is too slow.

I have noted that the last split file segment will often appear to be
done -- no file modifications -- while pg_dump is still running, often
for another 20 minutes or so, and then some last bit is finally
written.  It's as if pg_dump is calculating something at the end that is
quite slow.  At startup, there's a delay before data is written, too,
but it's generally 1-2 minutes at most.


В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: David Wall
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore
Следующее
От: Jacob Bunk Nielsen
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore