JSON output functions. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject JSON output functions.
Date
Msg-id 4F29CF4C.7030101@pgexperts.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: JSON output functions.  (Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@toroid.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
I've just been running some timings of my JSON-producing functions, in 
particular array_to_json, and comparing them with the current 
XML-producing functions. Here's a typical result:
   andrew=# explain analyse select array_to_json(array_agg(q),true)   from (select * from pg_attribute) q;
                                          QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate  (cost=70.77..70.78 rows=1 width=203) (actual   time=38.919..38.920 rows=1 loops=1)       ->  Seq Scan on
pg_attribute (cost=0.00..65.01 rows=2301   width=203) (actual time=0.007..1.454 rows=2253 loops=1)     Total runtime:
39.300ms   (3 rows)
 
   Time: 62.753 ms   andrew=# explain analyse select table_to_xml('pg_attribute',   true,false,'');
                     QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    Result  (cost=0.00..0.26
rows=1width=0) (actual   time=519.170..526.737 rows=1 loops=1)     Total runtime: 526.780 ms   (2 rows)
 


As you can see, producing the JSON is a heck of a lot faster than 
producing the equivalent XML. I had thought it might be necessary for 
good performance to cache the type output info in the FunctionCallInfo 
structure, rather than fetch it for each Datum we output, but that 
doesn't seem to be so. For now I'm inclined not to proceed with that, 
and leave it as an optimization to be considered later if necessary. 
Thoughts?

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: feature request - datum_compute_size and datum write_should be public
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt