On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:34 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> * Merlin Moncure (mmoncure@gmail.com) wrote:
> As for what language it's written in- I don't think that matters much.
> I'd very much expect it to be more performant to use binary if you're
> working in C, of course, but there's no point comparing C-parsed json
> into some C structure vs. psycopg2 injesting binary data and building a
> Python json object- what matters is if it'd be faster for psycopg2 to
> pull in binary-json data and put it into a Python json object, or if
> it'd be faster to parse the text-json data and put the result into the
> same Python object. In my view, there's something clearly quite wrong
> if the text-json data format is faster at that.
Yeah, I figure the language would be C or another language with
drivers smart enough to speak the binary protocol.
> > In my experience with arrays and composites, you can see significant
> > performance reduction and throughput increase in certain classes of
> > queries. However, some of the types that were the worst offenders
> > (like timestamps) have been subsequently optimized and/or are
> > irrelevant to json since they'd be passed as test anyways.
>
> I've had very good success transferring timestamps as binary, so I'm not
> quite sure what you're getting at here.
Er, yes, timestamps are much faster in binary -- that is what I'd
observed and was the point I was trying to make. They are slightly
less faster with recent optimizations but still faster. In the old
days I saw as much as +50% throughput binary vs text in certain
contrived situations; that may no longer be true today.
merlin