On 01/29/2016 05:06 PM, jfleming@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The jsonb_agg function seems to have significantly worse performance
than its json_agg counterpart:
=> explain analyze select pa.product_id, jsonb_agg(attributes) from
product_attributes2 pa group by pa.product_id;
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GroupAggregate (cost=1127.54..1231.62 rows=3046 width=380) (actual
time=28.632..241.647 rows=3046 loops=1)
Group Key: product_id
-> Sort (cost=1127.54..1149.54 rows=8800 width=380) (actual
time=28.526..32.826 rows=8800 loops=1)
Sort Key: product_id
Sort Method: external sort Disk: 3360kB
-> Seq Scan on product_attributes2 pa (cost=0.00..551.00
rows=8800 width=380) (actual time=0.010..7.231 rows=8800 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.376 ms
Execution time: 242.963 ms
(8 rows)
=> explain analyze select pa.product_id, json_agg(attributes) from
product_attributes3 pa group by pa.product_id;
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GroupAggregate (cost=1136.54..1240.62 rows=3046 width=387) (actual
time=17.731..30.126 rows=3046 loops=1)
Group Key: product_id
-> Sort (cost=1136.54..1158.54 rows=8800 width=387) (actual
time=17.707..20.705 rows=8800 loops=1)
Sort Key: product_id
Sort Method: external sort Disk: 3416kB
-> Seq Scan on product_attributes3 pa (cost=0.00..560.00
rows=8800 width=387) (actual time=0.006..5.568 rows=8800 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.181 ms
Execution time: 31.276 ms
(8 rows)
The only difference between the two tables is the type of the
attributes column (jsonb vs json). Each table contains the same 8800
rows. Even running json_agg on the jsonb column seems to be faster:
=> explain analyze select pa.product_id, json_agg(attributes) from
product_attributes2 pa group by pa.product_id;
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GroupAggregate (cost=1127.54..1231.62 rows=3046 width=380) (actual
time=30.626..62.943 rows=3046 loops=1)
Group Key: product_id
-> Sort (cost=1127.54..1149.54 rows=8800 width=380) (actual
time=30.590..34.157 rows=8800 loops=1)
Sort Key: product_id
Sort Method: external sort Disk: 3360kB
-> Seq Scan on product_attributes2 pa (cost=000..551.00
rows=8800 width=380) (actual time=0.014..7.388 rows=8800 loops=1)
Planning time: 0.142 ms
Execution time: 64.504 ms
(8 rows)
Is it expected that jsonb_agg performance would be that much worse
than json_agg?
I do expect it to be significantly worse. Constructing jsonb is quite a
lot more expensive than constructing json, it's the later processing
that provides the performance benefit of jsonb. For 99 out of 100 uses
that I have seen there is no need to be using jsonb_agg, since the
output is almost always fed straight back to the client, not stored or
processed further in the database. Rendering json to the client is
extremely cheap, since it's already just text. Rendering jsonb as text
to the client involves a lot more processing.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
