| From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel pg_dump |
| Date: | 2012-04-06 16:10:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4F7F157A.8020702@kaltenbrunner.cc |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/05/2012 12:32 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote:
> So here's a pg_dump benchmark from a real world database as requested
> earlier. This is a ~750 GB large 9.0.6 database, and the backup has
> been done over the internal network from a different machine. Both
> machines run Linux.
>
> I am attaching a chart that shows the table size distribution of the
> largest tables and the overall pg_dump runtime. The resulting (zlib
> compressed) dump directory was 28 GB.
>
> Here are the raw numbers:
>
> -Fc dump
> real 168m58.005s
> user 146m29.175s
> sys 7m1.113s
>
> -j 2
> real 90m6.152s
> user 155m23.887s
> sys 15m15.521s
>
> -j 3
> real 61m5.787s
> user 155m33.118s
> sys 13m24.618s
>
> -j 4
> real 44m16.757s
> user 155m25.917s
> sys 13m13.599s
>
> -j 6
> real 36m11.743s
> user 156m30.794s
> sys 12m39.029s
>
> -j 8
> real 36m16.662s
> user 154m37.495s
> sys 11m47.141s
interesting numbers, any details on the network speed between the boxes,
the number of cores, the size of the dump uncompressed and what the
appearant bottleneck was?
Stefan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shigeru Hanada | 2012-04-06 16:14:31 | Re: pgsql_fdw, FDW for PostgreSQL server |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2012-04-06 15:39:38 | Re: [PATCH] Support for foreign keys with arrays |