Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4A6629E9.8080100@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump (Bernd Helmle <mailings@oopsware.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: bytea vs. pg_dump
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bernd Helmle wrote: > --On Samstag, Juli 11, 2009 13:40:44 +0300 Peter Eisentraut > <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > >> OK, here is an updated patch. It has the setting as enum, completed >> documentation, and libpq support. I'll add it to the commit fest in the >> hope that someone else can look it over in detail. > > I've started looking at this and did some profiling with large bytea > data again. For those interested, here are the numbers: > > Dumping with bytea_output=hex (COPY to file): > > real 20m38.699s > user 0m11.265s > sys 1m0.560s > > Dumping with bytea_output=escape (COPY to file): > > real 39m52.399s > user 0m22.085s > sys 1m50.131s > > So the time needed dropped about 50%. The dump file dropped from > around 48 GB to 28 GB with the new format. > You just tested COPY, not pg_dump, right? Some pg_dump numbers would be interesting, both for text and custom formats. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: