On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:35:23AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:48 PM, John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com> wrote: > > On 7/27/2016 9:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > >> > >> That depends on how how many objects there are consuming that 1 TB. > >> With millions of small objects, you will have problems. Not as many > >> in 9.5 as there were in 9.1, but still it does not scale linearly in > >> the number of objects. If you only have thousands of objects, then as > >> far as I know -k works like a charm. > > > > > > millions of tables? > > Well, it was a problem at much smaller values, until we fixed many of > them. But the perversity is, if you are stuck on a version before the > fixes, the problems prevent you from getting to a version on which it > is not a problem any more.
Uh, that is only true if the slowness was in _dumping_ many objects. Most of the fixes have been for _restoring_ many objects, and that is done in the new cluster, so they should be OK. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
