Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Date
Msg-id 201012022312.oB2NCF119818@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump  (Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > I don't see the point of the sort-by-relpages code. The order the objects
> > are dumped should be irrelevant, as long as you obey the restrictions
> > dictated by dependencies. Or is it only needed for the multiple-target-dirs
> > feature? Frankly I don't see the point of that, so it would be good to cull
> > it out at least in this first stage.
> 
> >From the talk at CHAR(10), and provided memory serves, it's an
> optimisation so that you're doing largest file in a process and all the
> little file in other processes. In lots of case the total pg_dump
> duration is then reduced to about the time to dump the biggest files.

Seems there should be a comment in the code explaining why this is being
done.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three