Re: bytea vs. pg_dump

--On Dienstag, Mai 05, 2009 10:00:37 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
wrote:

>
> Seems like the right response might be some micro-optimization effort on
> byteaout.

Hmm looking into profiler statistics seems to second your suspicion:

Normal COPY shows:

% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name
31.29 81.38 81.38 134487 0.00 0.00 CopyOneRowTo
22.88 140.89 59.51 134487 0.00 0.00 byteaout
13.44 175.84 34.95 3052797224 0.00 0.00
appendBinaryStringInfo
12.10 207.32 31.48 3052990837 0.00 0.00 CopySendChar
8.45 229.31 21.99 3052797226 0.00 0.00 enlargeStringInfo
3.90 239.45 10.14 55500 0.00 0.00 pglz_decompress
3.28 247.97 8.52 3 2.84 2.84 appendStringInfoChar
1.82 252.71 4.74 134489 0.00 0.00 resetStringInfo
1.72 257.18 4.47 copy_dest_destroy
0.27 257.89 0.71 5544679 0.00 0.00
hash_search_with_hash_value
0.09 258.13 0.24 13205044 0.00 0.00 LWLockAcquire
0.08 258.35 0.22 13205044 0.00 0.00 LWLockRelease

COPY BINARY generates:

time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name
73.70 9.05 9.05 55500 0.00 0.00 pglz_decompress
6.03 9.79 0.74 5544679 0.00 0.00
hash_search_with_hash_value
2.93 10.15 0.36 13205362 0.00 0.00 LWLockAcquire
1.87 10.38 0.23 13205362 0.00 0.00 LWLockRelease

This is PostgreSQL 8.3.7 btw.

--
Thanks

Bernd