On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:14:55AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 12:39:09AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:31:41PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > > After looking through the code a bit, I realized that there are a lot > > > > > of > > > > > object types which don't have ACLs at all but which exist in > > > > > pg_catalog > > > > > and were being analyzed because the bitmask for pg_catalog included > > > > > ACLs > > > > > and therefore was non-zero. > > > > > > > > > > Clearing that bit for object types which don't have ACLs improved the > > > > > performance for empty databases quite a bit (from about 3s to a bit > > > > > under 1s on my laptop). That's a 42-line patch, with comment lines > > > > > being half of that, which I'll push once I've looked into the other > > > > > concerns which were brought up on this thread. > > > > > > > > That's good news. > > > > > > Attached patch-set includes this change in patch #2. > > > > Timings for the 100-database pg_dumpall: > > > > HEAD: 131s > > HEAD+patch: 33s > > 9.5: 8.6s > > > > Nice improvement for such a simple patch. > > Patch #2 in the attached patchset includes that improvement and a > further one which returns the performance to very close to 9.5.
What timings did you measure? (How close?) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
