Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:43:18 +0000
>> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>  
>>> Incidentally, I've been working on a patch to speed up CopyReadLine.
>>> I was going to run some more tests first, but since we're talking
>>> about it, I guess I should just post the patch. I'll post to
>>> pgsql-patches shortly.
>>
>> On your post to patches you mentioned only about a 5% improvement.
>> Don't get me wrong, 5% is 5% and I respect it greatly but as far as I
>> can tell we are about 300% behind the curve.
> 
> Yeah. Looking at the profile, the time is spent really all over the 
> place. There's no one clear bottleneck to focus on. I think we could do 
> a few more ~5% improvements, but
> 
> At some point, I think we have to bite the bullet and find a way to use 
> multiple CPUs for a single load. I don't have any good ideas or plans 
> for that, but hopefully someone does.
> 

There was talk elsewhere about making pg_dump/restore smarter.  It could 
create tables, then COPY, and create the indexes last.  Add to that 
pg_restore using multiple connections and you'd have it.  One connection 
could do a COPY, then a second connection could be created to start the 
CREATE INDEX's for that table, while the first connection went on to 
COPY the next table.

Or something like that...

-Andy