From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "mcelroy, tim" <tim(dot)mcelroy(at)bostonstock(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump issue |
Date: | 2006-05-30 16:20:23 |
Message-ID: | 24585.1149006023@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"mcelroy, tim" <tim(dot)mcelroy(at)bostonstock(dot)com> writes:
> The du . -h in $PGDATA showed PROD001 at 9.1G and Prod0002 at 8.8G so
> they're pretty much the same, one would think the smaller one should be
> faster. Yes, the backup files are identical in size.
Hmph. You should carry the "du" analysis down to the subdirectory
level, eg make sure that it's not a case of lots of pg_xlog bloat
balancing out bloat in a different area on the other system. But I
suspect you won't find anything.
> I'm hoping the Engineering staff can find something system related as I
> doubted and still doubt that it's a postgres issue.
I tend to agree. You might try watching "vmstat 1" output while taking
the dumps, so you could at least get a clue whether the problem is CPU
or I/O related ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan Blitz | 2006-05-30 17:11:30 | Re: Adding and filling new column on big table |
Previous Message | Francisco Reyes | 2006-05-30 15:58:38 | Re: Adding and filling new column on big table |