Re: improve performance of pg_dump --binary-upgrade

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: improve performance of pg_dump --binary-upgrade
Date: 2024-04-18 14:57:18
Message-ID: 20240418145718.GA3501884@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:08:28AM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Bar-napkin math tells me in a worst-case architecture and braindead byte
> alignment, we'd burn 64 bytes per struct, so the 100K tables cited would be
> about 6.25MB of memory.

That doesn't seem too terrible.

> The obvious low-memory alternative would be to make a prepared statement,
> though that does nothing to cut down on the roundtrips.
>
> I think this is a good trade off.

Cool.

--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Lakhin 2024-04-18 15:00:00 clang's sanitizer makes stringToNode() extremely slow
Previous Message Robert Haas 2024-04-18 14:50:10 Re: pg_combinebackup does not detect missing files