[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       postgresql-general
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] pg_restore oddity?
From:       Mario Weilguni <mweilguni () sime ! com>
Date:       2007-10-12 12:57:52
Message-ID: 470F6F50.70706 () sime ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Heikki Linnakangas schrieb:
> Mario Weilguni wrote:
>   
>> I cannot use "-1" for performance, because some gist stuff has changed
>> and the restore fails. But there seems to be no option for pg_restore to
>> use transactions for data restore, so it's very very slow (one million
>> records, each obviously in it's own transaction - because a separate
>> session "select count(1) from logins" shows a growing number).
>>     
>
> By default, pg_dump/pg_restore uses a COPY command for each table, and
> each COPY executes as a single transaction, so you shouldn't see the row
> count growing like that. Is the dump file in --inserts format?
>
>   

You are right, it was my fault. I was confused about the pg_dump syntax, 
and used "-d" (the "-d" because pg_restore needs it for the destination 
database, not the dump itself), so it was using "--inserts".

Everything is working fine. I've done dump/restores cycles a hundreds 
times, and now such a mistake. I can't believe it.
Seems like I need to take some vacations.

Thanks for the help!



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
       match
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]