Re: pg_dump and pg_restore with multiple streams does Not seem to improve overall times

From: Jan Lentfer <Jan(dot)Lentfer(at)web(dot)de>
To: Mel Llaguno <mllaguno(at)coverity(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_dump and pg_restore with multiple streams does Not seem to improve overall times
Date: 2015-05-04 16:42:26
Message-ID: 7dc008d2afe5d9b9dcfd90a3bb540f98@imap.lan.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin

Am 2015-05-04 18:19, schrieb Mel Llaguno:
> My understanding of parallel dump performance is that it only makes a
> difference when you have a large number of DBs (thousands if not tens
> of
> thousands). We performed similar testing using 9.3.x and found little
> performance gains using -j (with 100+ tables). See Bruce Momjian’s
> post :
> http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2012.html

I don't know about parallel pg_dump as we use -Fc and pg_dump can't do
that in parallel (afaik). For dumping I have wrapped pg_dump in a shell
script to dump several databases in parallel.
But for pg_restore -j option does make a big difference, at least when
you have a lot of larger tables and indexes.

Regards,

Jan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Frost 2015-05-04 17:12:40 Re: migrating to 9.2 created blank dbs
Previous Message Marc Fromm 2015-05-04 16:41:34 Re: migrating to 9.2 created blank dbs