From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: improve performance of pg_dump --binary-upgrade
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:57:18 -0500
Message-ID: <20240418145718.GA3501884@nathanxps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADkLM=fDR9msTafzrmm==aoNu6FvTj4OZxphmODHjU_zxW5A3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240418041712.GA3441570@nathanxps13>
<CADkLM=fDR9msTafzrmm==aoNu6FvTj4OZxphmODHjU_zxW5A3w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:08:28AM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Bar-napkin math tells me in a worst-case architecture and braindead byte
> alignment, we'd burn 64 bytes per struct, so the 100K tables cited would be
> about 6.25MB of memory.
That doesn't seem too terrible.
> The obvious low-memory alternative would be to make a prepared statement,
> though that does nothing to cut down on the roundtrips.
>
> I think this is a good trade off.
Cool.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, corey.huinker@gmail.com
Subject: Re: improve performance of pg_dump --binary-upgrade
In-Reply-To: <20240418145718.GA3501884@nathanxps13>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox