To: "mcelroy, tim" <tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_dump issue 
In-reply-to: 
 <9765373733A7DF4681B12225D2FC44050D6D12@bosexprod001.bostonstock.local>
References: 
 <9765373733A7DF4681B12225D2FC44050D6D12@bosexprod001.bostonstock.local>
Comments: In-reply-to "mcelroy, tim" <tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com>
	message dated "Tue, 30 May 2006 11:33:54 -0400"
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 12:20:23 -0400
Message-ID: <24585.1149006023@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"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