Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:38:04PM -0700, Mitar wrote:
>> ... Namely, it looks like writing into a jsonb typed
>> column is 30% faster than writing into a json typed column. Why is
>> that? Does not jsonb require parsing of JSON and conversion? That
>> should be slower than just storing a blob as-is?
> * Parsing is happening in both cases, for json it's done for validation
> purposes.
Right.
> * Compression of json data is actually dominates the runtime load for large
> json objects, making other factors less visible and reducing difference in
> size (jsonb also should be a bit bigger, that's why I would think it would be
> slower).
> * At the same time perf shows that json compression spends a bit more time in
> pglz_find_match (mostly around accessing and checking history entries), which
> is compression optimization via history table. So probably due to differences
> in data layout this optimization works slightly worse for plain json than for
> jsonb?
Interesting. I recall that we made some last-minute changes in the JSONB
physical representation after finding that the original choices resulted
in sucky compression behavior. But I think we were only looking at the
resultant compressed size, not time-to-compress.
My own guess about this, without having tried to reproduce it, is that
JSONB might end up physically smaller than JSON, resulting in less work
to push the toasted datum out to disk. This'd depend a lot on your
formatting habits for JSON, of course. But in any case, it'd be worth
comparing pg_column_size() results to see what's up with that.
regards, tom lane
