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
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 |