Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore
От | David Wall |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 53B83B1B.8010706@computer.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 7/4/2014 9:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> There are only 32 table, no functions, but mostly large objects. Not >> sure how to know about the LOs, but a quick check from the table sizes I >> estimate at only 2GB, so 16GB could be LOs. There are 7,528,803 entries >> in pg_catalog.pg_largeobject. > Hmm ... how many rows in pg_largeobject_metadata? pg_largeobject_metadata reports 1,656,417 rows. By the way, what is pg_largeobject_metadata vs. pg_largeobject since the counts are so different? >> 7547 esignfor 30 10 1148m 1.0g 852 S 2.3 26.9 14:10.27 pg_dump >> --format=c --oids ibc01 I haven't tested it for any side issues, but the --oids can probably be removed as we don't cross reference against OID columns anymore (all OIDs are just a field in a table that uses a UUID now for cross-referencing). But removing it seemed to make no difference if overall time for the pg_dump to complete. > That's a pretty large resident size for pg_dump :-( ... you evidently > have a lot of objects of some sort, and I'm betting it's LOs, but > let's make sure. Is there postgresql.conf setting that might help? It's a small 1GB RAM Linux VM with Tomcat web server (we give it 500-700MB) with PG DB on it. We don't do much but change max-connections to 70, shared_buffers to 128MB, maintenance_work_mem to 120MB, checkpoint_segments to 6. But in the end, I guess the main question is why the backup takes longer than the restore, which just seems counter-intuitive to me. Thanks for all your help and thinking about it!
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: