Just theoretically assumption. PostgreSQL sometimes may optimise internal
format of data and can sometimes zip data. ASCII data can be zipped better,
then binary random data. Also PostgreSQL sometimes take decision to keep a
column in an external file, if the column is still too big after zip. I
On 2019-03-22 13:40:28 +0100, Francisco Olarte wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:22 AM Thomas Güttler
> wrote:
> > Thank you for asking several times for a benchmark.
> > I wrote it now and it is visible: inserting random bytes into bytea
> > is much slower, if you use the psycopg2 defaults.
> >
Thomas:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:03 PM Thomas Güttler
wrote:
> > I'm not too sure, but I read ( in the code ) you are measuring a
> > nearly not compressible urandom data againtst a highly compressible (
...
> for this case toast-tables/wal is a detail of the implementation.
> This tests does no
On 3/22/19 6:04 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote:
Am 22.03.19 um 13:40 schrieb Francisco Olarte:
Thomas:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:22 AM Thomas Güttler
wrote:
Thank you for asking several times for a benchmark.
I wrote it now and it is visible: inserting random bytes into bytea
is much slower,
i
Am 22.03.19 um 13:40 schrieb Francisco Olarte:
Thomas:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:22 AM Thomas Güttler
wrote:
Thank you for asking several times for a benchmark.
I wrote it now and it is visible: inserting random bytes into bytea is much
slower,
if you use the psycopg2 defaults.
Here is th
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 01:40:28PM +0100, Francisco Olarte wrote:
> Thomas:
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:22 AM Thomas Güttler
> wrote:
> > Thank you for asking several times for a benchmark.
> > I wrote it now and it is visible: inserting random bytes into bytea is much
> > slower,
> > if you
Thomas:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:22 AM Thomas Güttler
wrote:
> Thank you for asking several times for a benchmark.
> I wrote it now and it is visible: inserting random bytes into bytea is much
> slower,
> if you use the psycopg2 defaults.
> Here is the chart:
>
> https://github.com/guettli
Thank you for asking several times for a benchmark.
I wrote it now and it is visible: inserting random bytes into bytea is much
slower,
if you use the psycopg2 defaults.
Here is the chart:
https://github.com/guettli/misc/blob/master/bench-bytea-inserts-postrgres.png
And here is the script wh
On 3/21/19 6:49 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
"Peter J. Holzer" writes:
On 2019-03-20 13:20:57 +0100, Thomas Güttler wrote:
Strange. I saw a big difference.
What did you test?
I tested inserts.
The graph with the quantiles was for selects.
Hmm, so there are two different code paths being considered
"Peter J. Holzer" writes:
> On 2019-03-20 13:20:57 +0100, Thomas Güttler wrote:
>> Strange. I saw a big difference.
>> What did you test?
>> I tested inserts.
> The graph with the quantiles was for selects.
Hmm, so there are two different code paths being considered here
-- the OP is apparently
On 2019-03-20 13:20:57 +0100, Thomas Güttler wrote:
>
>
> Am 19.03.19 um 20:37 schrieb Peter J. Holzer:
> > On 2019-03-18 15:33:17 +0100, Thomas Güttler wrote:
> > > I did some benchmarking and in my setup there was major
> > > performance difference.
> > >
> > > I tested a ByteA column.
> > >
Am 19.03.19 um 20:37 schrieb Peter J. Holzer:
On 2019-03-18 15:33:17 +0100, Thomas Güttler wrote:
I did some benchmarking and in my setup there was major
performance difference.
I tested a ByteA column.
If I used ascii data the tests took 52 seconds.
If I used random binary data the test to
On 2019-03-18 15:33:17 +0100, Thomas Güttler wrote:
> I did some benchmarking and in my setup there was major
> performance difference.
>
> I tested a ByteA column.
>
> If I used ascii data the tests took 52 seconds.
> If I used random binary data the test took 250 seconds.
>
> binary data is (r
Am 18.03.19 um 17:52 schrieb Adrian Klaver:
On 3/18/19 7:59 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote:
Am 18.03.19 um 15:49 schrieb Tom Lane:
Adrian Klaver writes:
On 3/18/19 7:33 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote:
If I used ascii data the tests took 52 seconds.
If I used random binary data the test took 250 sec
On 3/18/19 7:59 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote:
Am 18.03.19 um 15:49 schrieb Tom Lane:
Adrian Klaver writes:
On 3/18/19 7:33 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote:
If I used ascii data the tests took 52 seconds.
If I used random binary data the test took 250 seconds.
This doesn't seem terribly surprising in
Am 18.03.19 um 15:49 schrieb Tom Lane:
Adrian Klaver writes:
On 3/18/19 7:33 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote:
If I used ascii data the tests took 52 seconds.
If I used random binary data the test took 250 seconds.
This doesn't seem terribly surprising in bytea_output = escape
mode. Probably wit
Adrian Klaver writes:
> On 3/18/19 7:33 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote:
>> If I used ascii data the tests took 52 seconds.
>> If I used random binary data the test took 250 seconds.
This doesn't seem terribly surprising in bytea_output = escape
mode. Probably with bytea_output = hex the performance wo
On 3/18/19 7:33 AM, Thomas Güttler wrote:
I did some benchmarking and in my setup there was major
performance difference.
I tested a ByteA column.
What was the test?
If I used ascii data the tests took 52 seconds.
If I used random binary data the test took 250 seconds.
binary data is (roug
I did some benchmarking and in my setup there was major
performance difference.
I tested a ByteA column.
If I used ascii data the tests took 52 seconds.
If I used random binary data the test took 250 seconds.
binary data is (roughly) five times slower than ascii data?
Is this a know fact, or i
19 matches
Mail list logo
