Re: pg_dump and pg_restore, speed - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Philip Warner |
---|---|
Subject | Re: pg_dump and pg_restore, speed |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3.0.5.32.20000802021049.0297ea10@mail.rhyme.com.au Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: pg_dump + function/table hierarchy (Philip Warner <pjw@rhyme.com.au>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
At 18:26 1/08/00 +0200, Kovacs Zoltan Sandor wrote: >> Can you send me the actual times? And the command you used? >I don't think my database is large enough to give you worthy data (~10000 >lines). But, with the old pg_dump I got 5 secs, with the new one: 9 secs. >I used the -Fc option. The old dump was 377K, the new one is 285K. The time diff and size diff is because the -Fc format compresses the data by default. If you did '-Fc -Z0', you would get 0 compression, a larger file, and a time that was closer to the original. >pg_restore was fast, it was less than 1 sec. The total restoring time with >psql was 29 secs from the old dump, 86 secs from the new one. 86 with the new one is a worry. It should not be that much slower - unless there are a lot of tables, in which case updating of pg_class to disable triggers for each table will slow it down a bit. I assume from this that you used pg_restore to create a script, which you then fed into psql. Is that right? If so, you might like to try: % createdb newdb % pg_restore <backup-file> --db=newdb this avoids using psql and should be faster. I'd be interested to know how slow/fast it is. If it it still slow, is there any chance you could mail me the backup file directly? I'll certainly understand if you say 'no', for obvious reasons. >I use Linux >2.2-12.20 (RedHat 6.1), the server is a 366 MHz Intel Celeron with a >WD64AA hard disk w/ 2048K cache. Should be plenty. >By the way, is there any statistics about the dumping/restoring time with >larger databases? Is there a faster method to backup and restore a >database than I did? As above; dump: use -Z0 (no compression), restore: use --db to attach to the DB directly. Statistics I have done with databases of 100,000 records and 1.3M records show no appreciable difference between the old & new for both dump & restore. The dump always takes longer if compression is used. I have not compared it to piping the output to gzip, but I imagine they are similar. Hope this helps, Philip. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Warner | __---_____ Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \ (A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_ Tel: (+61) 0500 83 82 81 | _________ \ Fax: (+61) 0500 83 82 82 | ___________ | Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \| | --________-- PGP key available upon request, | / and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/
pgsql-hackers by date: