| From: | "Pierre C" <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joachim Wieland" <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel pg_dump for 9.1 |
| Date: | 2010-03-30 11:56:45 |
| Message-ID: | op.vadp4vw1eorkce@immo.peufeu.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:01:54 +0200, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
wrote:
> On tis, 2010-03-30 at 08:39 +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>> on fast systems pg_dump is completely CPU bottlenecked
>
> Might be useful to profile why that is. I don't think pg_dump has
> historically been developed with CPU efficiency in mind.
Already done that (I had posted some WIP patches to speed up COPY,
hopefully I'll have time to finish those one day ;)
Most of the time spent in the postmaster process during "COPY TO" is in
the datum -> string functions.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2010-03-30 12:15:34 | Re: Parallel pg_dump for 9.1 |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-03-30 11:04:48 | Re: GSoC |