X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893085E3AB3 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 02:05:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39828-05 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 05:05:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from main.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.224.249]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61995E38A9 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2004 02:05:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1Bswul-0006Q3-00 for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 07:05:13 +0200 Received: from linuxnews.dk ([81.7.132.92]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 07:05:11 +0200 Received: from jesper by linuxnews.dk with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 07:05:11 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org From: Jesper Krogh Subject: Re: pg_dump performance? Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 05:05:08 +0000 (UTC) Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <41130D16.7030902@familyhealth.com.au> X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: linuxnews.dk User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200408/73 X-Sequence-Number: 7709 I gmane.comp.db.postgresql.performance, skrev Christopher Kings-Lynne: > Is it the dump or the restore that's really slow? Primarily the dump, it seems to be CPU-bound on the postmaster' process. No signs on IO-bottleneck when I try to monitor with iostat or vmstat -- ./Jesper Krogh, jesper@krogh.cc Jabber ID: jesper@jabbernet.dk