From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: mcelroy, tim <tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_dump issue
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:20:23 -0400
Message-ID: <24585.1149006023@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9765373733A7DF4681B12225D2FC44050D6D12@bosexprod001.bostonstock.local>
References: <9765373733A7DF4681B12225D2FC44050D6D12@bosexprod001.bostonstock.local>
"mcelroy, tim" <tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com> writes:
> The du . -h in $PGDATA showed PROD001 at 9.1G and Prod0002 at 8.8G so
> they're pretty much the same, one would think the smaller one should be
> faster. Yes, the backup files are identical in size.
Hmph. You should carry the "du" analysis down to the subdirectory
level, eg make sure that it's not a case of lots of pg_xlog bloat
balancing out bloat in a different area on the other system. But I
suspect you won't find anything.
> I'm hoping the Engineering staff can find something system related as I
> doubted and still doubt that it's a postgres issue.
I tend to agree. You might try watching "vmstat 1" output while taking
the dumps, so you could at least get a clue whether the problem is CPU
or I/O related ...
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, tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com
Subject: Re: pg_dump issue
In-Reply-To: <24585.1149006023@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