From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Ted Allen" <tallen(at)blackducksoftware(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Troubles dumping a very large table. |
Date: | 2008-12-26 19:50:32 |
Message-ID: | b42b73150812261150k6b17b819i704b6b7720243eb8@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Ted Allen <tallen(at)blackducksoftware(dot)com> writes:
>> 600mb measured by get_octet_length on data. If there is a better way to measure the row/cell size, please let me know because we thought it was the >1Gb problem too. We thought we were being conservative by getting rid of the larger rows but I guess we need to get rid of even more.
>
> Yeah, the average expansion of bytea data in COPY format is about 3X :-(
> So you need to get the max row length down to around 300mb. I'm curious
> how you got the data in to start with --- were the values assembled on
> the server side?
Wouldn't binary style COPY be more forgiving in this regard? (if so,
the OP might have better luck running COPY BINARY)...
This also goes for libpq traffic..large (>1mb) bytea definately want
to be passed using the binary switch in the protocol.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-26 20:18:50 | Re: Troubles dumping a very large table. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-26 17:38:38 | Re: Troubles dumping a very large table. |