From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | "Scott Carey" <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Matthew Wakeling" <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |
Date: | 2009-07-30 22:00:00 |
Message-ID: | 4A71D1900200002500029175@gw.wicourts.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> writes:
>> Gzip does have some quirky performance behavior depending on the
>> chunk size of data you stream into it.
>
> Can you enlarge on that comment? I'm not sure that pg_dump is aware
> that there's anything to worry about there.
If the library used here is anything like the native library used by
Java, it'd be worth putting a buffer layer ahead of the calls to gzip,
so it isn't dealing with each individual value as a separate call. I
seem to remember running into that issue in Java, where throwing a
BufferedOutputStream in there fixed the performance issue.
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rauan Maemirov | 2009-07-30 22:02:45 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-30 21:53:45 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |