From: | Matthew Rudolph <mrudolph(at)zetec(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Speed/Performance with pg_restore |
Date: | 2003-06-06 18:13:15 |
Message-ID: | 5790CEEF83581444838043A480BDABD7012196D6@exchange01.zetec.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
I am currently unable to search the archive so I will ask even though I
am sure something similar has been asked before.
I am wondering why a pg_restore is so slow. I have a db that was dumped
with columns and inserts, which I Know is slower than using the copy
statements but why are inserts so slow and is there anything I can
do to make it faster. Is there any documentation that talks about this?
I have a db that as plain text is 6.2MB, not much, but when I restore it
(using psql for plain text) it takes over 6 min.
That same db created with pg_dump -DFc and then run through pg_restore
takes over 12 minutes.
My machine is an AMD xp2000 with 500MB ram running win2000 and
postgresql 7.3.2, obviously through cygwin.
I just can't imagine a multi gigabyte database being able to be restored
via pg_restore.
The reason I think I need to use insert statements is for longevity. The
customers may need to go on a witch hunt years down the road and my
thinking was that if this was just SQL, it will always work.
Thanks,
Matthew Rudolph
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Information contained in this message and/or
attachment(s) may contain confidential information of Zetec, Inc.
If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
the sender by return email.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan Bartlett | 2003-06-06 18:20:00 | Re: Select from multiple tables |
Previous Message | kdebisschop | 2003-06-06 18:06:25 | Re: Nulls get converted to 0 problem |