(attached is the flamegraph of the profile, in case others are interested)
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:33, Jelte Fennema <me(at)jeltef(dot)nl> wrote:
>
> (reviving an old thread)
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:29, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)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.
