Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YpJSC-0008PO-1Y for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 16:42:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YpJSA-0002YP-Uj for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 16:42:46 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YpJS4-0002O1-3e for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 16:42:40 +0000 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1YpJRz-0002Ch-Md for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 16:42:38 +0000 Received: from vm-mailsrv.lan.net ([87.155.100.102]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LsQQK-1ZHogK2DRw-0120R0; Mon, 04 May 2015 18:42:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vm-mailsrv.lan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45962DF15; Mon, 4 May 2015 18:42:30 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.898 tagged_above=-99.9 required=6.31 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from vm-mailsrv.lan.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (vm-mailsrv.lan.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dtcSbZYXChpJ; Mon, 4 May 2015 18:42:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from neslonek.homeunix.org (vm-webapp-ext.dmz-lan.net [192.168.0.100]) by vm-mailsrv.lan.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFCADF00; Mon, 4 May 2015 18:42:26 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 18:42:26 +0200 From: Jan Lentfer To: Mel Llaguno Cc: Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?Q?pg=5Fdump=20and=20pg=5Frestore=20with=20mul?= =?UTF-8?Q?tiple=20streams=20does=20Not=20seem=20to=20improve=20overall=20?= =?UTF-8?Q?times?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7dc008d2afe5d9b9dcfd90a3bb540f98@imap.lan.net> X-Sender: Jan.Lentfer@web.de User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.7.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:wVUYJP7O6sgT4GKtEjkO/PN2Klo2N6zvsFYSnc1N1Gn5ZYGT6HF 1STrZEJUbuQAfvrPXRv+WYbm8iq/ffmudBlmTPtHDmr+bCUdme8BjkAVeo4QxyoUs2YF0j/ IahasvNfMWKzvN8uuxFOIBeUhOgUPxiwxcw1gQ6dEQ6FvxV73uGZmtGAZDhAZ+e0+1XAPQn Nz7z0zj+uZT633NElYryw== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-admin Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org Am 2015-05-04 18:19, schrieb Mel Llaguno: > 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=20 > of > thousands). We performed similar testing using 9.3.x and found little > performance gains using -j (with 100+ tables). See Bruce Momjian=E2=80=99= s=20 > post : > http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2012.html I don't know about parallel pg_dump as we use -Fc and pg_dump can't do=20 that in parallel (afaik). For dumping I have wrapped pg_dump in a shell=20 script to dump several databases in parallel. But for pg_restore -j option does make a big difference, at least when=20 you have a lot of larger tables and indexes. Regards, Jan --=20 Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin