Re: bytea vs. pg_dump - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> Bernd Helmle wrote:
>>
>> --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  name
>> 35.13     24.67    24.67   134488     0.00     0.00  byteaout
>> 32.61     47.57    22.90   134488     0.00     0.00  CopyOneRowTo
>> 28.92     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
>
>
> while doing some pg_migrator testing I noticed that dumping a database seems
> to be much slower than IO-system is capable off. ie i get 100% CPU usage
> with no IO-wait at all with between 15-30MB/s read rate if i say do a
> pg_dumpall > /dev/null.

Part of the problem is the decompression.  Can't do much about that
except to not compress your data.

I don't have any hard statistics on hand at the moment, but a while
back we compared 'COPY' vs a hand written SPI routine that got the
tuple data in binary and streamed it out field by field raw to a file.The speed difference was enormous..I don't recall
theexact 
difference but copy was at least 2x slower.  This seems to suggest
there are many potential improvements to copy (my test was mainly
bytea as well).

merlin