Re: improve performance of pg_dump --binary-upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: improve performance of pg_dump --binary-upgrade
Date
Msg-id 20240418145718.GA3501884@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: improve performance of pg_dump --binary-upgrade  (Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 02:08:28AM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Bar-napkin math tells me in a worst-case architecture and braindead byte
> alignment, we'd burn 64 bytes per struct, so the 100K tables cited would be
> about 6.25MB of memory.

That doesn't seem too terrible.

> The obvious low-memory alternative would be to make a prepared statement,
> though that does nothing to cut down on the roundtrips.
> 
> I think this is a good trade off.

Cool.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_combinebackup does not detect missing files
Next
From: Alexander Lakhin
Date:
Subject: clang's sanitizer makes stringToNode() extremely slow