Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A886347C9
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  1 Apr 2009 10:46:41 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 14318-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  1 Apr 2009 10:46:39 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B346330EE
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  1 Apr 2009 10:46:39 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n31Dkb7v004108;
	Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:46:37 -0400 (EDT)
To: henk de wit <henk53602@hotmail.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: How to get parallel restore in PG 8.4 to work? 
In-reply-to: <COL104-W61EE9F7AF2E58BCC54F122F58B0@phx.gbl> 
References: <COL104-W6288B22DCD85FC12769A2F58A0@phx.gbl>
	<20300.1238540913@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<COL104-W61EE9F7AF2E58BCC54F122F58B0@phx.gbl>
Comments: In-reply-to henk de wit <henk53602@hotmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:22:33 +0200"
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:46:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4107.1238593597@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200904/5
X-Sequence-Number: 33372

henk de wit <henk53602@hotmail.com> writes:
> I still have some work to do to find out why dumping in the custom
> format is so much slower.

Offhand the only reason I can see for it to be much different from
plain-text output is that -Fc compresses by default.  If you don't
care about that, try -Fc -Z0.

			regards, tom lane