Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33A5F6501A5 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:56:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79014-03-3 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:56:28 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE64C64FFC8 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:56:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6QHuE8E024457; Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:56:14 -0400 (EDT) To: Simon Riggs cc: Stephen Frost , pgsql-patches@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg_dump additional options for performance In-reply-to: <1217091402.3894.1185.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> References: <20080720214335.GB18846@tamriel.snowman.net> <1216591180.19656.848.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <20080721011829.GC18846@tamriel.snowman.net> <20080721014942.GC30869@sonic.net> <20080721015850.GD18846@tamriel.snowman.net> <18415.1216611275@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1216621040.19656.867.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <20080721115602.GG18846@tamriel.snowman.net> <1216831237.3894.676.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <1216832987.3894.678.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <20080724032047.GI18846@tamriel.snowman.net> <1216885031.3894.739.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <21687.1216886041@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1216889809.3894.747.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <2818.1217027784@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1217063104.3894.1100.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <23540.1217089204@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1217091402.3894.1185.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs message dated "Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:56:42 +0100" Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:56:14 -0400 Message-ID: <24456.1217094974@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200807/261 X-Sequence-Number: 6955 Simon Riggs writes: > I want to dump tables separately for performance reasons. There are > documented tests showing 100% gains using this method. There is no gain > adding this to pg_restore. There is a gain to be had - parallelising > index creation, but this patch doesn't provide parallelisation. Right, but the parallelization is going to happen sometime, and it is going to happen in the context of pg_restore. So I think it's pretty silly to argue that no one will ever want this feature to work in pg_restore. To extend the example I just gave to Stephen, I think a fairly probable scenario is where you only need to tweak some "before" object definitions, and then you could do pg_restore --schema-before-data whole.dump >before.sql edit before.sql psql -f before.sql target_db pg_restore --data-only --schema-after-data -d target_db whole.dump which (given a parallelizing pg_restore) would do all the time-consuming steps in a fully parallelized fashion. regards, tom lane