On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 10:50:21PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:12:44AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:02:28PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > > > > (3) pg_dumpall became much slower around the time of these commits. > > > > > On one > > > > > machine (POWER7 3.55 GHz), a pg_dumpall just after initdb slowed from > > > > > 0.25s at > > > > > commit 6c268df^ to 4.0s at commit 7a54270. On a slower machine > > > > > (Opteron > > > > > 1210), pg_dumpall now takes 19s against such a fresh cluster.
> > > the additional time for > > > pg_dump is due to the queries looking at the catalog objects and is > > > therefore relatively fixed and is primairly only a large amount of the > > > time when dumping databases which are mostly empty. > > > > Do you think it would be okay to release 9.6 with pg_dump still adding that > > amount of time per database? > > For my 2c, the answer is "yes". I've actually looked at how this could be > improved using a bit of caching in pg_dump for certain things, but I didn't > think those would be appropriate to include in this patch and would be a > general pg_dump performance improvement. > > I'm certainly open to improving these issues now if we agree that they > should be fixed for 9.6. If we don't want to include such changes in 9.6 > then I will propose then for post-9.6. Folks run clusters with ~1000 databases; we previously accepted at least one complex performance improvement based on that use case. On the faster of the two machines I tested, the present thread's commits slowed "pg_dumpall --schema-only --binary-upgrade" by 1-2s per database. That doubles pg_dump runtime against the installcheck regression database. A run against a cluster of one hundred empty databases slowed fifteen-fold, from 8.6s to 131s. "pg_upgrade -j50" probably will keep things tolerable for the 1000-database case, but the performance regression remains jarring. I think we should not release 9.6 with pg_dump performance as it stands today.  http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1718942738eb65c8407fcd864883f...@fuzzy.cz -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers