Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: "Greg Smith" <greg@2ndquadrant.com>,
"KaiGai Kohei" <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Takahiro Itagaki" <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, "Jaime Casanova" <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec>
Date: 2010-01-22T21:05:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Do you have the opportunity to try an experiment on hardware >> similar to what you're running that on? Create a database with 7 >> million tables and see what the dump/restore times are like, and >> whether pg_dump/pg_restore appear to be CPU-bound or >> memory-limited when doing it. > If these can be empty (or nearly empty) tables, I can probably swing > it as a background task. You didn't need to match the current 1.3 > TB database size I assume? Empty is fine. >> If they aren't, we could conclude that millions of TOC entries >> isn't a problem. > I'd actually be rather more concerned about the effects on normal > query plan times, or are you confident that won't be an issue? This is only a question of what happens internally in pg_dump and pg_restore --- I'm not suggesting we change anything on the database side. regards, tom lane