Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore
Date
Msg-id 19368.1404533931@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore  (David Wall <d.wall@computer.org>)
Responses Re: pg_dump slower than pg_restore  (David Wall <d.wall@computer.org>)
List pgsql-general
David Wall <d.wall@computer.org> writes:
> On 7/4/2014 7:19 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You haven't given us much info about the contents of this database.
>> Are there a lot of tables? functions? large objects?  How many is
>> "a lot", if so?

> 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?

> Basic top stats while running show:

>   7547 esignfor  30  10 1148m 1.0g  852 S  2.3 26.9 14:10.27 pg_dump
> --format=c --oids ibc01

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.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Gavin Flower
Date:
Subject: Re: Random-looking primary keys in the range 100000..999999
Next
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: Random-looking primary keys in the range 100000..999999