From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: psql and COPY BINARY |
Date: | 2005-12-14 17:24:21 |
Message-ID: | 22082.1134581061@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> There wasn't any obvious bang for the buck in rewriting it.
> Well a non-binary copy could take as much as 5 times as much as a binary
> copy. I hit this when COPYing 1.5GB of data, getting a 6.6GB file. This
> made the 100MBit LAN connection a bottleneck.
Or vice versa --- the binary format is *not* necessarily smaller than text.
As an example, an integer column that contains only small values (say 1
or 2 digits) will need 8 bytes as binary and only 2 or 3 as text.
Fixing psql to handle binary copy isn't an unreasonable thing to do,
but I can't get real excited about it either ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-12-14 17:28:04 | Re: Immodest Proposal: pg_catalog.pg_ddl |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2005-12-14 17:19:26 | Re: psql and COPY BINARY |