问题

When I began, I used pg_dump with the default plain format. I was unenlightened.

Research revealed to me time and file size improvements with pg_dump -Fc | gzip -9 -c > dumpfile.gz. I was enlightened.

When it came time to create the database anew,

# create tablespace dbname location '/SAN/dbname';
# create database dbname tablespace dbname;
# alter database dbname set temp_tablespaces = dbname;

% gunzip dumpfile.gz              # to evaluate restore time without a piped uncompression
% pg_restore -d dbname dumpfile   # into a new, empty database defined above

I felt unenlightened: the restore took 12 hours to create the database that's only a fraction of what it will become:

# select pg_size_pretty(pg_database_size('dbname'));
47 GB

Because there are predictions this database will be a few terabytes, I need to look at improving performance now.

Please, enlighten me.

回答1:

First check that you are getting reasonable IO performance from your disk setup. Then check that you PostgreSQL installation is appropriately tuned. In particular shared_buffers should be set correctly, maintenance_work_mem should be increased during the restore, full_page_writes should be off during the restore, wal_buffers should be increased to 16MB during the restore, checkpoint_segments should be increased to something like 16 during the restore, you shouldn't have any unreasonable logging on (like logging every statement executed), auto_vacuum should be disabled during the restore.

If you are on 8.4 also experiment with parallel restore, the --jobs option for pg_restore.

回答2:

Improve pg dump&restore

PG_DUMP | always use format directory with -j option

time pg_dump -j 8 -Fd -f /tmp/newout.dir fsdcm_external

PG_RESTORE | always use tuning for postgres.conf with format directory With -j option

work_mem = 32MB
shared_buffers = 4GB
maintenance_work_mem = 2GB
full_page_writes = off
autovacuum = off
wal_buffers = -1

time pg_restore -j 8 --format=d -C -d postgres /tmp/newout.dir/`

For more info

https://github.com/YanarAssaf/PostgreSQL/wiki/Improve-pg-dump%7Crestore

回答3:

Two issues/ideas:

By specifying -Fc, the pg_dump output is already compressed. The compression is not maximal, so you may find some space savings by using "gzip -9", but I would wager it's not enough to warrant the extra time (and I/O) used compressing and uncompressing the -Fc version of the backup.
If you are using PostgreSQL 8.4.x you can potentially speed up the restore from a -Fc backup with the new pg_restore command-line option "-j n" where n=number of parallel connections to use for the restore. This will allow pg_restore to load more than one table's data or generate more than one index at the same time.

回答4:

I assume you need backup, not a major upgrade of database.

For backup of large databases you should setup continuous archiving instead of pg_dump.

Set up WAL archiving.
Make your base backups for example every day by using
psql template1 -c "select pg_start_backup('`date +%F-%T``')"rsync -a --delete /var/lib/pgsql/data/ /var/backups/pgsql/base/psql template1 -c "select pg_stop_backup()"`

A restore would be as simple as restoring database and WAL logs not older than pg_start_backup time from backup location and starting Postgres. And it will be much faster.

回答5:

zcat dumpfile.gz | pg_restore -d db_name

Removes the full write of the uncompressed data to disk, which is currently your bottleneck.

回答6:

As you may have guessed simply by the fact that compressing the backup results in faster performance, your backup is I/O bound. This should come as no surprise as backup is pretty much always going to be I/O bound. Compressing the data trades I/O load for CPU load, and since most CPUs are idle during monster data transfers, compression comes out as a net win.

So, to speed up backup/restore times, you need faster I/O. Beyond reorganizing the database to not be one huge single instance, that's pretty much all you can do.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2094963/postgresql-improving-pg-dump-pg-restore-performance

标签

performance