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 934499DCAD6 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:32:45 -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 61756-03 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:32:41 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EAF9DCBE9 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 16:32:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB3KWLIK002405; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 15:32:21 -0500 (EST) To: "Luke Lonergan" cc: "Stephen Frost" , "David Lang" , "Steve Oualline" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Database restore speed In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to "Luke Lonergan" message dated "Sat, 03 Dec 2005 11:42:02 -0800" Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:32:20 -0500 Message-ID: <2404.1133641940@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001] X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/104 X-Sequence-Number: 15925 "Luke Lonergan" writes: > Last I looked at the Postgres binary dump format, it was not portable or > efficient enough to suit the need. The efficiency problem with it was that > there was descriptive information attached to each individual data item, as > compared to the approach where that information is specified once for the > data group as a template for input. Are you complaining about the length words? Get real... regards, tom lane