(attached is the flamegraph of the profile, in case others are interested)
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:33, Jelte Fennema <m...@jeltef.nl> wrote: > > (reviving an old thread) > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:29, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'll still stand other point I made though; I'd > > really want to see some benchmarks demonstrating benefit over > > competing approaches that work over the current formats. That should > > frame the argument as to whether this is a good idea. > > I tried to use COPY BINARY to copy data recently from one Postgres > server to another and it was much slower than I expected. The backend > process on the receiving side was using close to 100% of a CPU core. > So the COPY command was clearly CPU bound in this case. After doing a > profile it became clear that 50% of the CPU time was spent on parsing > JSON. This seems extremely excessive to me. I'm pretty sure any > semi-decent binary format would be able to outperform this. > > FYI: The table being copied contained large JSONB blobs in one of the > columns. These blobs were around 15kB for each row.
