From: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
To: Michael Stone <mstone+postgres@mathom.us>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Database restore speed
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:02:11 -0800
Message-ID: <BFB61273.14EE0%llonergan@greenplum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051202214602.GH7330@mathom.us>
Micahel,
On 12/2/05 1:46 PM, "Michael Stone" <mstone+postgres@mathom.us> wrote:
> Not necessarily; you may be betting that it's more *efficient* to do the
> parsing on a bunch of lightly loaded clients than your server. Even if
> you're using the same code this may be a big win.
If it were possible in light of the issues on client parse / convert, then
we should analyze whether it's a performance win.
In the restore case, where we've got a dedicated server with a dedicated
client machine, I don't see why there would be a speed benefit from running
the same parse / convert code on the client versus running it on the server.
Imagine a pipeline where there is a bottleneck, moving the bottleneck to a
different machine doesn't make it less of a bottleneck.
- Luke
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: llonergan@greenplum.com, mstone+postgres@mathom.us
Subject: Re: Database restore speed
In-Reply-To: <BFB61273.14EE0%llonergan@greenplum.com>
* 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