Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
Date
Msg-id 20230720190644.GA1724613@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Inefficiency in parallel pg_restore with many tables
List pgsql-hackers
Here is a work-in-progress patch set for converting ready_list to a
priority queue.  On my machine, Tom's 100k-table example [0] takes 11.5
minutes without these patches and 1.5 minutes with them.

One item that requires more thought is binaryheap's use of Datum.  AFAICT
the Datum definitions live in postgres.h and aren't available to frontend
code.  I think we'll either need to move the Datum definitions to c.h or to
adjust binaryheap to use "void *".

[0] https://postgr.es/m/3612876.1689443232%40sss.pgh.pa.us

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gurjeet Singh
Date:
Subject: Re: There should be a way to use the force flag when restoring databases
Next
From: "Tristan Partin"
Date:
Subject: Re: Use COPY for populating all pgbench tables