Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>> Here are some timing tests in 1m rows of random utf8 encoded 100 char
>> data. It doesn't look to me like the saving you're suggesting is worth
>> the trouble.
>>
>
> Hmm ... not sure I believe your numbers. Using a test file of 1m lines
> of 100 random latin1 characters converted to utf8 (thus, about half and
> half 7-bit ASCII and 2-byte utf8 characters), I get this in SQL_ASCII
> encoding:
>
> regression=# \timing
> Timing is on.
> regression=# create temp table test(f1 text);
> CREATE TABLE
> Time: 5.047 ms
> regression=# copy test from '/home/tgl/zzz1m';
> COPY 1000000
> Time: 4337.089 ms
>
> and this in UTF8 encoding:
>
> utf8=# \timing
> Timing is on.
> utf8=# create temp table test(f1 text);
> CREATE TABLE
> Time: 5.108 ms
> utf8=# copy test from '/home/tgl/zzz1m';
> COPY 1000000
> Time: 7776.583 ms
>
> The numbers aren't super repeatable, but it sure looks to me like the
> encoding check adds at least 50% to the runtime in this example; so
> doing it twice seems unpleasant.
>
> (This is CVS HEAD, compiled without assert checking, on an x86_64
> Fedora Core 6 box.)
>
>
Are you comparing apples with apples? The db is utf8 in both of my cases.
cheers
andrew
