Re: bytea vs. pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 15219.1241532037@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to bytea vs. pg_dump  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
Responses Re: bytea vs. pg_dump  (Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>)
Re: bytea vs. pg_dump  (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de> writes:
> From time to time we had complains about slow dump of large tables with 
> bytea columns, people often complaining about a) size and b) duration of 
> the dump.

> That latter occurred recently to me, a customer would like to dump large 
> tables (approx. 12G in size) with pg_dump, but he was annoyed about the 
> performance. Using COPY BINARY reduced the time (unsurprisingly) to a 
> fraction (from 12 minutes to 3 minutes).

Seems like the right response might be some micro-optimization effort on
byteaout.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: conditional dropping of columns/constraints
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: bytea vs. pg_dump