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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |