On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 5:37 PM R Wahyudi <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've been given a database dump file daily and I've been asked to restore
> it.
> I tried everything I could to speed up the process, including using -j 40.
>
> I discovered that at the later stage of the restore process,  the
> following behaviour repeated a few times :
> 40 x pg_restore process doing 100% CPU
>

Threads are not magic.  IO and memory limitations still exist.


> 40 x  postgres process doing COPY but using 0% CPU
> ..... and zero disk write activity
>
> I don't see this behaviour when restoring the database that was dumped
> with -Fd.
> Also with an un-piped backup file, I can restore a specific table without
> having to wait for hours.
>

We explained this three days ago.  Heck, it's in this very email.   Click
on "the three dots", scroll down a bit.


> On Fri, 19 Sept 2025 at 01:54, Adrian Klaver <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/18/25 05:58, R Wahyudi wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the quick and accurate response!  I never been so happy
>> > seeing IOwait on my system!
>>
>> Because?
>>
>> What did you find?
>>
>> >
>> > I might be blind as  I can't find information about 'offset' in pg_dump
>> > documentation.
>> > Where can I find more info about this?
>>
>> It is not in the user documentation.
>>
>>  From the thread Ron referred to, there is an explanation here:
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/366773.1756749256%40sss.pgh.pa.us
>>
>> I believe the actual code, for the -Fc format, is in pg_backup_custom.c
>> here:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_custom.c#L723
>>
>> Per comment at line 755:
>>
>> "
>>   If possible, re-write the TOC in order to update the data offset
>> information.  This is not essential, as pg_restore can cope in most
>> cases without it; but it can make pg_restore significantly faster
>> in some situations (especially parallel restore).  We can skip this
>> step if we're not dumping any data; there are no offsets to update
>> in that case.
>> "
>>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Rianto
>> >
>> > On Wed, 17 Sept 2025 at 13:48, Ron Johnson <[email protected]
>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >     PG 17 has integrated zstd compression, while --format=directory lets
>> >     you do multi-threaded dumps.  That's much faster than a single-
>> >     threaded pg_dump into a multi-threaded compression program.
>> >
>> >     (If for _Reasons_ you require a single-file backup, then tar the
>> >     directory of compressed files using the --remove-files option.)
>> >
>> >     On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 10:50 PM R Wahyudi <[email protected]
>> >     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >         Sorry for not including the full command - yes , its piping to a
>> >         compression command :
>> >           | lbzip2 -n <threadsforbzipgoeshere>--best >
>> <filenamegoeshere>
>> >
>> >
>> >         I think we found the issue! I'll do further testing and see how
>> >         it goes !
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >         On Wed, 17 Sept 2025 at 11:02, Ron Johnson
>> >         <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >             So, piping or redirecting to a file?  If so, then that's the
>> >             problem.
>> >
>> >             pg_dump directly to a file puts file offsets in the TOC.
>> >
>> >             This how I do custom dumps:
>> >             cd $BackupDir
>> >             pg_dump -Fc --compress=zstd:long -v -d${db} -f ${db}.dump
>> >               2> ${db}.log
>> >
>> >             On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 8:54 PM R Wahyudi
>> >             <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >                 pg_dump was done using the following command :
>> >                 pg_dump -Fc -Z 0 -h <host> -U <user> -w -d <database>
>> >
>> >                 On Wed, 17 Sept 2025 at 08:36, Adrian Klaver
>> >                 <[email protected]
>> >                 <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> >
>> >                     On 9/16/25 15:25, R Wahyudi wrote:
>> >                      >
>> >                      > I'm trying to troubleshoot the slowness issue
>> >                     with pg_restore and
>> >                      > stumbled across a recent post about pg_restore
>> >                     scanning the whole file :
>> >                      >
>> >                      >  > "scanning happens in a very inefficient way,
>> >                     with many seek calls and
>> >                      > small block reads. Try strace to see them. This
>> >                     initial phase can take
>> >                      > hours in a huge dump file, before even starting
>> >                     any actual restoration."
>> >                      > see : https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/
>> >                     E48B611D-7D61-4575-A820- <https://
>> >
>> www.postgresql.org/message-id/E48B611D-7D61-4575-A820->
>> >                      > B2C3EC2E0551%40gmx.net <http://40gmx.net>
>> >                     <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ <https://
>> >                     www.postgresql.org/message-id/>
>> >                      > E48B611D-7D61-4575-A820-B2C3EC2E0551%40gmx.net
>> >                     <http://40gmx.net>>
>> >
>> >                     This was for pg_dump output that was streamed to a
>> >                     Borg archive and as
>> >                     result had no object offsets in the TOC.
>> >
>> >                     How are you doing your pg_dump?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >                     --
>> >                     Adrian Klaver
>> >                     [email protected]
>> >                     <mailto:[email protected]>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >             --
>> >             Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
>> >             Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
>> >             <Redacted> lobster!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >     --
>> >     Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
>> >     Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
>> >     <Redacted> lobster!
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Adrian Klaver
>> [email protected]
>>
>

-- 
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!

Reply via email to