Re: pg_dump issue - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_dump issue
Date
Msg-id 24585.1149006023@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump issue  ("mcelroy, tim" <tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com>)
List pgsql-performance
"mcelroy, tim" <tim.mcelroy@bostonstock.com> writes:
> The du . -h  in $PGDATA showed PROD001 at 9.1G and Prod0002 at 8.8G so
> they're pretty much the same, one would think the smaller one should be
> faster.  Yes, the backup files are identical in size.

Hmph.  You should carry the "du" analysis down to the subdirectory
level, eg make sure that it's not a case of lots of pg_xlog bloat
balancing out bloat in a different area on the other system.  But I
suspect you won't find anything.

> I'm hoping the Engineering staff can find something system related as I
> doubted and still doubt that it's a postgres issue.

I tend to agree.  You might try watching "vmstat 1" output while taking
the dumps, so you could at least get a clue whether the problem is CPU
or I/O related ...

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jonathan Blitz"
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding and filling new column on big table
Next
From: "mcelroy, tim"
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump issue