| From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "David Lang" <dlang(at)invendra(dot)net>, "Steve Oualline" <soualline(at)stbernard(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Database restore speed |
| Date: | 2005-12-03 21:29:01 |
| Message-ID: | BFB74E1D.14FE4%llonergan@greenplum.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom,
On 12/3/05 12:32 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> writes:
>> Last I looked at the Postgres binary dump format, it was not portable or
>> efficient enough to suit the need. The efficiency problem with it was that
>> there was descriptive information attached to each individual data item, as
>> compared to the approach where that information is specified once for the
>> data group as a template for input.
>
> Are you complaining about the length words? Get real...
Hmm - "<sizeof int><int>" repeat, efficiency is 1/2 of "<int>" repeat. I
think that's worth complaining about.
- Luke
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rodrigo Madera | 2005-12-03 23:00:21 | Faster db architecture for a twisted table. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-03 20:32:20 | Re: Database restore speed |