X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70729DD78D for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:02:57 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71882-08 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:02:52 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw04.mi8.com [63.240.6.44]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CDB99DD781 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:02:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from 172.16.1.112 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D4)); Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:02:47 -0500 X-Server-Uuid: C8FB4D43-1108-484A-A898-3CBCC7906230 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.160]) by D01SMTP02.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 2 Dec 2005 18:02:12 -0500 Received: from 67.103.45.218 ([67.103.45.218]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.104]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 2 Dec 2005 23:02:11 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.1.051004 Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:02:11 -0800 Subject: Re: Database restore speed From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Michael Stone" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Database restore speed Thread-Index: AcX3ifHBl7L5/1gZTGGQ4QudMIDVkgACnt+q In-Reply-To: <20051202214602.GH7330@mathom.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Dec 2005 23:02:12.0536 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E297B80:01C5F794] X-WSS-ID: 6F8E0D1D4084147175-07-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.253 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.253] X-Spam-Score: 1.253 X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200512/87 X-Sequence-Number: 15908 Micahel, On 12/2/05 1:46 PM, "Michael Stone" 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