From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
Date: | 2012-05-31 03:54:30 |
Message-ID: | 26386.1338436470@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> Ok, I modified the part of pg_dump where tremendous number of LOCK
>> TABLE are issued. I replace them with single LOCK TABLE with multiple
>> tables. With 100k tables LOCK statements took 13 minutes in total, now
>> it only takes 3 seconds. Comments?
> Shall I commit to master and all supported branches?
I'm not excited by this patch. It dodges the O(N^2) lock behavior for
the initial phase of acquiring the locks, but it does nothing for the
lock-related slowdown occurring in all pg_dump's subsequent commands.
I think we really need to get in the server-side fix that Jeff Janes is
working on, and then re-measure to see if something like this is still
worth the trouble. I am also a tad concerned about whether we might not
have problems with parsing memory usage, or some such, with thousands of
tables being listed in a single command.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-05-31 04:01:49 | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-05-31 02:52:30 | Re: temporal support patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-05-31 04:01:49 | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2012-05-31 00:20:43 | Re: pg_dump and thousands of schemas |