>> I still have some work to do to find out why dumping in the custom >> format is so much slower. > > Offhand the only reason I can see for it to be much different from > plain-text output is that -Fc compresses by default. If you don't > care about that, try -Fc -Z0.
Ok, I did some performance testing today and I appeared to be wrong after all. My apologies for the noise. Here are some test results: Scenarioxfsjfs patchedjfscat backup | gunzip | psql45 min--pg_dump> hdd (uncompressed) (==pg_dump -Fp)--10 min 15 secpg_dump -Fc> hdd (uncompressed)10 min 20 sec10 min 21 sec10 min 28 secpg_dump -Fc | gzip> hdd11 min 20 sec11 min 25 sec12 min 04 secpg_restore 8 threads14 min 23 sec11 min 40 sec11 min 20 secpg_restore 16 threads11 min 46 sec12 min 40 sec12 min 33 secpg_restore 32 threads11 min 42 sec12 min 30 sec12 min 30 sec As can be seen in the table (hope this renders correctly on the mailing list), there is barely a difference between a plain dump and a custom format dump. For who it concerns, xfs performance a little better than jfs here, but the difference is marginal. More on topic, beyond 16 processes there isn't any notable speed improvement for the parallel restore (as expected). Kind regards,Henk _________________________________________________________________ See all the ways you can stay connected to friends and family http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/default.aspx
