| From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "David Lang" <dlang(at)invendra(dot)net>, "Steve Oualline" <soualline(at)stbernard(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Database restore speed |
| Date: | 2005-12-02 21:24:31 |
| Message-ID: | BFB5FB8F.14EA1%llonergan@greenplum.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Stephen,
On 12/2/05 1:19 PM, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> I've used the binary mode stuff before, sure, Postgres may have to
> convert some things but I have a hard time believing it'd be more
> expensive to do a network_encoding -> host_encoding (or toasting, or
> whatever) than to do the ascii -> binary change.
From a performance standpoint no argument, although you're betting that you
can do parsing / conversion faster than the COPY core in the backend can (I
know *we* can :-). It's a matter of safety and generality - in general you
can't be sure that client machines / OS'es will render the same conversions
that the backend does in all cases IMO.
- Luke
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2005-12-02 21:29:47 | Re: Database restore speed |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2005-12-02 21:19:25 | Re: Database restore speed |