On Saturday, July 15, 2023 7:47:12 PM CEST Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure how big a deal this is in practice: in most situations
> the individual jobs are larger than they are in this toy example,
> plus the initial non-parallelizable part of the restore is a bigger
> bottleneck anyway with this many tables. Still, we do have one
> real-world complaint, so maybe we should look into improving it.
Hi
For what it's worth, at my current job it's kind of a big deal. I was going to
start looking at the bad performance I got on pg_restore for some databases
with over 50k tables (in 200 namespaces) when I found this thread. The dump
weights in about 2,8GB, the toc.dat file is 230MB, 50 120 tables, 142 069
constraints and 73 669 indexes.
HEAD pg_restore duration: 30 minutes
pg_restore with latest patch from Nathan Bossart: 23 minutes
This is indeed better, but there is still a lot of room for improvements. With
such usecases, I was able to go much faster using the patched pg_restore with
a script that parallelize on each schema instead of relying on the choices
made by pg_restore. It seems the choice of parallelizing only the data loading
is losing nice speedup opportunities with a huge number of objects.
patched pg_restore + parallel restore of schemas: 10 minutes
Anyway, the patch works really fine as is, and I will certainly keep trying
future iterations.
Regards
Pierre
