X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B70C9DCC8F for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:46:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38382-04 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:46:06 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net (vms042pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.42]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67499DCAE2 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:46:07 -0400 (AST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([70.108.54.76]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IQW00AXS4GO6IR0@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:46:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C264600280 for ; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from osgiliath.mathom.us ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (osgiliath [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 29144-05 for ; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by osgiliath.mathom.us (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3857F60027B; Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:46:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:46:02 -0500 From: Michael Stone Subject: Re: Database restore speed In-reply-to: To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Mail-followup-to: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <20051202214602.GH7330@mathom.us> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-disposition: inline X-Pgp-Fingerprint: 53 FF 38 00 E7 DD 0A 9C 84 52 84 C5 EE DF 7C 88 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at mathom.us References: <20051202211925.GF6026@ns.snowman.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/83 X-Sequence-Number: 15904 On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 01:24:31PM -0800, Luke Lonergan wrote: From a performance standpoint no argument, although you're betting that you >can do parsing / conversion faster than the COPY core in the backend can Not necessarily; you may be betting that it's more *efficient* to do the parsing on a bunch of lightly loaded clients than your server. Even if you're using the same code this may be a big win. Mike Stone