From: jmcdonagh <Joseph.E.McDonagh@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Incredibly slow restore times after 9.0>9.2 upgrade
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1414686202058-5825052.post@n5.nabble.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1414529739004-5824701.post@n5.nabble.com>
References: <1414529739004-5824701.post@n5.nabble.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
I just had a thought- I know some of these tables are in need of a vacuuming.
Could it be that the dump is dumping a bunch of garbage that the restore has
to sift through on the restore? I don't know enough details to know if this
is a dumb thought or not.
The restore to RDS took roughly the same amount of time. My next move is to
try on a fast instance store, and also do a postgres 9 restore of a pure SQL
dump, but that won't really be a great test since I use custom format. I'm
assuming here that I can't take the custom dump from 9.2 and apply it to
9.0, or can I?
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Incredibly-slow-restore-times-after-9-0-9-2-upgrade-tp582470...
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Joseph.E.McDonagh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Incredibly slow restore times after 9.0>9.2 upgrade
In-Reply-To: <1414686202058-5825052.post@n5.nabble.com>
* 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