Re: a back up question

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: a back up question
Date: 2017-12-06 14:57:15
Message-ID: 20171206145715.GA4628@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

John, all,

* John R Pierce (pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com) wrote:
> On 12/5/2017 2:09 PM, Martin Mueller wrote:
> >Time is not really a problem for me, if we talk about hours rather
> >than days.  On a roughly comparable machine I’ve made backups of
> >databases less than 10 GB, and it was a matter of minutes.  But I
> >know that there are scale problems. Sometimes programs just hang
> >if the data are beyond some size.  Is that likely in Postgres if
> >you go from ~ 10 GB to ~100 GB?  There isn’t any interdependence
> >among my tables beyond  queries I construct on the fly, because I
> >use the database in a single user environment
>
> another factor is restore time.    restores have to create
> indexes.   creating indexes on multi-million-row tables can take
> awhile.  (hint, be sure to set maintenance_work_mem to 1GB before
> doing this!)

I'm sure you're aware of this John, but for others following along, just
to be clear: indexes have to be recreated when restoring from a
*logical* (eg: pg_dump based) backups. Indexes don't have to be
recreated for *physical* (eg: file-based) backups.

Neither pg_dump nor the various physical-backup utilities should hang or
have issues with larger data sets.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vick Khera 2017-12-06 14:57:45 Re: a back up question
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2017-12-06 14:52:09 Re: Why the planner does not use index for a large amount of data?