From: | Nick Matheson <Nick(dot)D(dot)Matheson(at)noaa(dot)gov> |
---|---|
To: | Pierre C <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, Dan Schaffer <Daniel(dot)S(dot)Schaffer(at)noaa(dot)gov>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Help with bulk read performance |
Date: | 2010-12-17 13:51:27 |
Message-ID: | 4D0B6ADF.7050303@noaa.gov |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Pierre-
I agree with your observation of float <-> text conversion costs, but in
this case Dan is talking about storing the raw float data (ie: 4 bytes
per float) in a bytea array so there is only the conversion from java
float[n] to java byte[4*n] which is not nearly as costly as float <->
text conversion (especially if you leave it in architecture byte order).
Nick
>
>> If the data are stored as a byte array but retrieve into a ResultSet,
>> the unpacking time goes up by an order of magnitude and the
>> observed total throughput is 25 MB/s. If the data are stored in a
>> Postgres float array and unpacked into a byte stream, the
>> observed throughput is 20 MB/s.
>
>
> float <-> text conversions are very slow, this is in fact due to the
> mismatch between base-2 (IEEE754) and base-10 (text) floating point
> representation, which needs very very complex calculations.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marti Raudsepp | 2010-12-17 14:01:50 | Re: postgres performance tunning |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-12-17 13:20:19 | Re: postgres performance tunning |