Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
От | Bernd Helmle |
---|---|
Тема | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 299012482D9F2E375E631D5F@teje обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
--On Mittwoch, Mai 06, 2009 19:04:21 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > So I'm now persuaded that a better textual representation for bytea > should indeed make things noticeably better here. It would be > useful though to cross-check this thought by profiling a case that > dumps a comparable volume of text data that contains no backslashes... This is a profiling result of the same data converted into a printable text format without any backslashes. The data amount is quite the same and as you already guessed, calls to appendBinaryStringInfo() and friends gives the expected numbers: time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name35.13 24.67 24.67 134488 0.00 0.00 byteaout32.61 47.57 22.90 134488 0.00 0.00 CopyOneRowTo28.92 67.88 20.31 85967 0.00 0.00 pglz_decompress 0.67 68.35 0.47 4955300 0.00 0.00 hash_search_with_hash_value 0.28 68.55 0.20 11643046 0.00 0.00 LWLockRelease 0.28 68.75 0.20 4828896 0.00 0.00 index_getnext 0.24 68.92 0.17 1208577 0.00 0.00 StrategyGetBuffer 0.23 69.08 0.16 11643046 0.00 0.00 LWLockAcquire ... 0.00 70.23 0.00 134498 0.00 0.00 enlargeStringInfo 0.00 70.23 0.00 134497 0.00 0.00 appendBinaryStringInfo 0.00 70.23 0.00 134490 0.00 0.00 AllocSetReset 0.00 70.23 0.00 134490 0.00 0.00 resetStringInfo 0.00 70.23 0.00 134488 0.00 0.00 CopySendChar 0.00 70.23 0.00 134488 0.00 0.00 CopySendEndOfRow -- Thanks Bernd
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: