From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John Vincent <lusis(dot)org(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PGSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance of pg_dump on PGSQL 8.0 |
Date: | 2006-06-14 21:03:35 |
Message-ID: | 1150319015.26538.45.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
How long does gzip take to compress this backup?
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:59, John Vincent wrote:
> Okay I did another test dumping using the uncompressed backup on the
> system unloaded and the time dropped down to 8m for the backup.
> There's still the size issue to contend with but as I said, I've got a
> fair bit of space left on the SAN to work with.
>
> On 6/14/06, John Vincent <pgsql-performance(at)lusis(dot)org> wrote:
> Well I did a test to answer my own question:
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 postgres postgres 167M Jun 14 01:43
> claDW_PGSQL-20060613170001.bak
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2.4G Jun 14 14:45
> claDW_PGSQL.test.bak
>
> the claDW_PGSQL database is a subset of the data in the main
> schema that I'm dealing with.
>
> I did several tests using -Fc -Z0 and a straight pg_dump with
> no format option.
>
> The file size is about 1300% larger and takes just as long to
> dump even for that small database.
>
> Interestingly enough gzip compresses about 1M smaller with no
> gzip options.
>
> I don't know that the uncompressed is really helping much. I'm
> going to run another query when there's no other users on the
> system and see how it goes.
>
>
>
> --
> John E. Vincent
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-06-14 21:13:44 | Re: Performance of pg_dump on PGSQL 8.0 |
Previous Message | John Vincent | 2006-06-14 20:55:00 | Re: Performance of pg_dump on PGSQL 8.0 |