On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> Folks run clusters with ~1000 databases; we previously accepted at least one
>> complex performance improvement[1] 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.
> As someone that is responsible for many such clusters, I strongly agree.

Stephen: This is a CRITICAL ISSUE.  Unless I'm missing something, this
hasn't gone anywhere in well over a week, and we're wrapping beta next
Monday.  Please fix it.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to