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

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

Mel Llaguno • Staff Engineer – Team Lead
Office: +1.403.264.9717 x3310
www.coverity.com <http://www.coverity.com/> • Twitter: @coverity

On 5/4/15, 6:17 AM, "Jan Lentfer" <Jan(dot)Lentfer(at)web(dot)de> wrote:

>Am 2015-05-01 17:16, schrieb Susan K. McClure:
>
>[...]
>> My postgresql.conf has these options for (hopefully) pg_dump and
>> pg_restore improvements:
>>
>> =================
>> work_mem = 1GB # dump/restore Perf Value
>> #maintenance_work_mem = 2048MB # min 1MB
>> maintenance_work_mem = 1GB # dump/restore Perf Value
>> #autovacuum_work_mem = -1 # min 1MB, or -1 to use
>> maintenance_work_mem
>>
>> ...
>> fsync = off # dump/restore Perf Valuecheckpoint_segments = 60 #
>> dump/restore Perf Value
>> checkpoint_warning = 60s # dump/restore Perf Value
>> ......
>> autovacuum = off # dump/restore Perf Value..
>> =============================
>>
>> Any thoughts on what else I might try to improve things ?
>[...]
>
>It ist more interesting to know how your database schema is. How many
>"large" tables do you have. What is e.g. the size of your 10,20,30
>largest tables?
>
>Regards
>
>Jan
>
>
>
>
>--
>Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>To make changes to your subscription:
>http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin