Re: Database restore speed

From: "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Database restore speed
Date: 2005-12-02 23:02:11
Message-ID: BFB61273.14EE0%llonergan@greenplum.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Micahel,

On 12/2/05 1:46 PM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> wrote:

> Not necessarily; you may be betting that it's more *efficient* to do the
> parsing on a bunch of lightly loaded clients than your server. Even if
> you're using the same code this may be a big win.

If it were possible in light of the issues on client parse / convert, then
we should analyze whether it's a performance win.

In the restore case, where we've got a dedicated server with a dedicated
client machine, I don't see why there would be a speed benefit from running
the same parse / convert code on the client versus running it on the server.
Imagine a pipeline where there is a bottleneck, moving the bottleneck to a
different machine doesn't make it less of a bottleneck.

- Luke

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Francisco Reyes 2005-12-02 23:28:09 Small table or partial index?
Previous Message Michael Riess 2005-12-02 23:01:55 15,000 tables - next step