| From: | "Shulgin, Oleksandr" <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_restore real file size |
| Date: | 2016-02-26 08:11:40 |
| Message-ID: | CACACo5T=CrnWYac+_0ybCw2f+OdVt=hNyqNBjiFDUr1ApuEHZA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:30 AM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2/25/2016 8:26 PM, drum(dot)lucas(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
>
> I'm doing the pg_restore now in a 1.5TB file:
>
> *# ls -la*
>
> postgres postgres 1575324616939 Feb 20 13:55 devdb_0.sql
>
> But, the restore has gone over 1.6 TB
>
>
> the dump file does not contain the indexes, just CREATE INDEX statements
>
Not to mention that on-disk format is quite different from the SQL dump.
Due to row and page headers the on disk format could occupy more space, on
the other hand if you have a lot of numeric data which can be represented
compactly in the binary format, the restored database might occupy less
space in the end.
--
Alex
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alban Hertroys | 2016-02-26 08:18:09 | Re: pg_restore real file size |
| Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2016-02-26 04:30:29 | Re: pg_restore real file size |