jmcdonagh <Joseph.E.McDonagh@gmail.com> writes:
> I just had a thought- I know some of these tables are in need of a vacuuming.
> Could it be that the dump is dumping a bunch of garbage that the restore has
> to sift through on the restore? I don't know enough details to know if this
> is a dumb thought or not.
No. However it's true that the dump will take a bit longer having to
scan a bloated table rather than a tight one.
Dump will only output the live rows. psql or pg_restore whatever you're
using on the target side will not have to step over any junk.
HTH
>
> The restore to RDS took roughly the same amount of time. My next move is to
> try on a fast instance store, and also do a postgres 9 restore of a pure SQL
> dump, but that won't really be a great test since I use custom format. I'm
> assuming here that I can't take the custom dump from 9.2 and apply it to
> 9.0, or can I?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Incredibly-slow-restore-times-after-9-0-9-2-upgrade-tp5824701p5825052.html
> Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Jerry Sievers
Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
e: postgres.consulting@comcast.net
p: 312.241.7800