| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2010-12-02 23:12:15 |
| Message-ID: | 201012022312.oB2NCF119818@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't see the point of the sort-by-relpages code. The order the objects
> > are dumped should be irrelevant, as long as you obey the restrictions
> > dictated by dependencies. Or is it only needed for the multiple-target-dirs
> > feature? Frankly I don't see the point of that, so it would be good to cull
> > it out at least in this first stage.
>
> >From the talk at CHAR(10), and provided memory serves, it's an
> optimisation so that you're doing largest file in a process and all the
> little file in other processes. In lots of case the total pg_dump
> duration is then reduced to about the time to dump the biggest files.
Seems there should be a comment in the code explaining why this is being
done.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2010-12-02 23:37:05 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-12-02 22:32:16 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |