Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 18:27:20 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, depesz@depesz.com,
	pgsql-general <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Can we get rid of repeated queries from pg_dump?
Message-ID: <20210827222720.GV17906@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <20210826084430.GA26282@depesz.com>
 <648517.1629986527@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20210826140827.GA15868@depesz.com>
 <649446.1629987629@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20210826160644.GA3120@depesz.com>
 <e6a7503afd115d111fbb96c5787906d73cfe2605.camel@cybertec.at>
 <896732.1630099403@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20210827215836.GT17906@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <900377.1630103105@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Rd+jWxMEN+3uw23T"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <900377.1630103105@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210827222720.GV17906%40tamriel.snowman.net>
Precedence: bulk


--Rd+jWxMEN+3uw23T
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> >> I experimented with the attached, very quick-n-dirty patch to collect
> >> format_type results during the initial scan of pg_type, instead.  On t=
he
> >> regression database in HEAD, it reduces the number of queries pg_dump
> >> issues from 3260 to 2905; but I'm having a hard time detecting any net
> >> performance change.
>=20
> > Seems like the issue here is mainly just the latency of each query being
> > rather high compared to most use-cases, so local testing where there's
> > basically zero latency wouldn't see any change in timing, but throw a
> > trans-atlantic or worse amount of latency between the system running
> > pg_dump and the PG server and you'd see notable wall-clock savings in
> > time.
>=20
> Yeah.  What I was more concerned about was the potential downside
> of running format_type() for each pg_type row, even though we might
> use only a few of those results.  The fact that I'm *not* seeing
> a performance hit with a local server is encouraging from that
> standpoint.

Ah, yes, agreed.

Thanks!

Stephen

--Rd+jWxMEN+3uw23T
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=lgPj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Rd+jWxMEN+3uw23T--