From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Sergio Gabriel Rodriguez <sgrodriguez@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: problems with large objects dump
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 12:33:21 -0400
Message-ID: <24248.1348158801@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMHBdEroekZuQZdqXyX5m=_Z6L-+-k_jWvnEi5JbkS_iy_LQ+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMHBdEoS3b7XZ2JWWG+Y71MGpnDJFLM3U0WnFMxvhOe=Oq2q_w@mail.gmail.com>
<16863.1348151708@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAMHBdEroekZuQZdqXyX5m=_Z6L-+-k_jWvnEi5JbkS_iy_LQ+w@mail.gmail.com>
Sergio Gabriel Rodriguez <sgrodriguez@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> You wouldn't happen to be
>> trying to use a 9.0 or later pg_dump would you? Exactly what 8.4.x
>> release is this, anyway?
> Tom, thanks for replying, yes, we tried it with postgres postgres 9.1 and
> 9.2 and the behavior is exactly the same. The production version is 8.4.9
Well, I see three different fixes for O(N^2) pg_dump performance
problems in the 8.4.x change logs since 8.4.9, so you're a bit behind
the times there. However, all of those fixes would have been in 9.2.0,
so if you saw no improvement with a 9.2.0 pg_dump then the problem is
something else. Can you put together a test case for somebody else to
try, or try to locate the bottleneck yourself using oprofile or perf?
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sgrodriguez@gmail.com
Subject: Re: problems with large objects dump
In-Reply-To: <24248.1348158801@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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