Best regards,
Hugo
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/pg-dump-and-thousands-of-schemas-tp5709766p5718532.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-perfor
use -Fc in our production server, but it doesn't help much (dump time
still > 24 hours). Actually, I tried several different dump options without
success. It seems that you guys are very close to great improvements here.
Thanks for everything!
Best,
Hugo
--
View this message in context:
http:/
on my local computer), but my production database uses
postgresql 9.0. So it would be great if improvements could be delivered to
version 9.0 as well.
Thanks a lot for all the help!
Hugo
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/pg-dump-and-thousands-of-schemas
compress the postgresql folder as the backup solution for now until
we can fix pg_dump or wait for postgresql 9.2 to become the official version
(as long as I don't need a dump and restore to upgrade the db).
If anyone has more suggestions, I would like to hear them. Thank you!
Regards,
Hug
seems that pg_dump hasn't been tested with a huge number of schemas like
that. Does anyone have a solution or suggestions? Do you know if there are
patches specific for this case?
Thanks in advance,
Hugo
-
Official Nabble Administrator - we never ask for passwords.
--
View this message
:
stats_start_collector = true
stats_command_string = true
stats_reset_on_server_start = false
Any tip?
Thanks in advance,
Hugo Ferreira
--
GPG Fingerprint: B0D7 1249 447D F5BB 22C5 5B9B 078C 2615 504B 7B85
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe
plication_out_all), followed by a filter with columns from
the second index (trans_id, ent_id, pk1, pk2, pk3, pk4, pk5, pk6,
pk7), though the 'age' column is not used... Any guess why??
Thanks in advance,
Hugo Ferreira
> It is possible but complicated to determine that reordering outer joi
chment.
Once again thanks for your help,
Hugo Ferreira
> Can you *format* this query please, and re-submit it? Proper query format
> looks like:
>
> SELECT a.1, b.2
> FROM a JOIN b ON a.1 = b.3
> JOIN c ON b.4 = c.1
> WHERE a.5 < 6
> AND c.7 = '
) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=0 loops=14862)"
" -> Seq Scan on mrs_replication_out "out"
(cost=0.00..128.92 rows=1 width=42) (actual time=0.000..0.000 rows=0
loops=1)"
"Filter: ((trans_id = 514::numeric)
A
