Greetings, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> I experimented with the attached, very quick-n-dirty patch to collect > >> format_type results during the initial scan of pg_type, instead. On the > >> regression database in HEAD, it reduces the number of queries pg_dump > >> issues from 3260 to 2905; but I'm having a hard time detecting any net > >> performance change. > > > Seems like the issue here is mainly just the latency of each query being > > rather high compared to most use-cases, so local testing where there's > > basically zero latency wouldn't see any change in timing, but throw a > > trans-atlantic or worse amount of latency between the system running > > pg_dump and the PG server and you'd see notable wall-clock savings in > > time. > > Yeah. What I was more concerned about was the potential downside > of running format_type() for each pg_type row, even though we might > use only a few of those results. The fact that I'm *not* seeing > a performance hit with a local server is encouraging from that > standpoint.
Ah, yes, agreed. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
