Re: Performance problem with large insert statements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Barry Lind <barry@xythos.com> writes:
> In looking at some performance issues (I was trying to look at the 
> overhead of toast) I found that large insert statements were very slow.
> ...
> I tried to run gprof to see where the time was going, but for some 
> reason the gprof output on my gmon.out file doesn't have any timing 
> information (all times are reported as 0.0) and I haven't been able to 
> figure out why yet.

That seems to be a common disease among Linuxen; dunno why.  gprof
works fine for me on HPUX.  I got around to reproducing this today,
and what I find is that the majority of the backend time is going into
simple scanning of the input statement:

Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. %   cumulative   self              self     total           time   seconds
seconds   calls  ms/call  ms/call  name    31.24     11.90    11.90                             _mcount19.51     19.33
  7.43    10097     0.74     1.06  base_yylex 7.48     22.18     2.85 21953666     0.00     0.00  appendStringInfoChar
5.88    24.42     2.24      776     2.89     2.89  pglz_compress 4.36     26.08     1.66 21954441     0.00     0.00
pq_getbyte3.57     27.44     1.36  7852141     0.00     0.00  addlit 3.26     28.68     1.24     1552     0.80     0.81
scanstr 2.84     29.76     1.08      779     1.39     7.18  pq_getstring 2.31     30.64     0.88    10171     0.09
0.09 _doprnt 2.26     31.50     0.86      776     1.11     1.11  byteain 2.07     32.29     0.79
    msquadloop 1.60     32.90     0.61  7931430     0.00     0.00  memcpy 1.18     33.35     0.45
     chunks 1.08     33.76     0.41    46160     0.01     0.01  strlen 1.08     34.17     0.41
  encore 1.05     34.57     0.40     8541     0.05     0.05  XLogInsert 0.89     34.91     0.34
   appendStringInfo
 

60% of the call graph time is accounted for by these two areas:

index % time    self  children    called     name               7.43    3.32   10097/10097       yylex [14]
[13]    41.0    7.43    3.32   10097         base_yylex [13]               1.36    0.61 7852141/7852141     addlit [28]
             1.24    0.01    1552/1552        scanstr [30]               0.02    0.03    3108/3108
ScanKeywordLookup[99]               0.00    0.02    2335/2335        yy_get_next_buffer [144]               0.02
0.00    776/781         strtol [155]               0.00    0.01     777/3920        MemoryContextStrdup [108]
   0.00    0.00       1/1           base_yy_create_buffer [560]               0.00    0.00    4675/17091       isupper
[617]              0.00    0.00    1556/1556        yy_get_previous_state [671]               0.00    0.00     779/779
      yywrap [706]               0.00    0.00       1/2337        base_yy_load_buffer_state [654]
 
-----------------------------------------------               1.08    4.51     779/779         pq_getstr [17]
[18]    21.4    1.08    4.51     779         pq_getstring [18]               2.85    0.00 21953662/21953666
appendStringInfoChar[20]               1.66    0.00 21954441/21954441     pq_getbyte [29]
 
-----------------------------------------------

While we could probably do a little bit to speed up pg_getstring and its
children, it's not clear that we can do anything about yylex, which is
flex output code not handmade code, and is probably well-tuned already.

Bottom line: feeding huge strings through the lexer is slow.
        regards, tom lane