public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Ernst-Georg Schmid <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 19:39:20 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

 > Yeah, there's your problem.  Each time through the trigger, that query
 > is being parsed, planned, and executed from scratch.  plpgsql knows
 > how to cache the planned statement, so it's doing less work per-call.

Hello again,

thank you for your help.

I have now used SPI_prepare() and SPI_keepplan() to cache the plan in a 
static variable - and now it performs exactly like the PL/pgSQL version. 
Which also probably means that either the Trigger is so trivial that C 
makes no difference, or the observed TPS limit comes from somewhere else.

I have still a follow-up question, though. Since I'm not calling 
SPI_freeplan(), the cached plan lives forever, right? Which is no 
problem, since the trigger does the same statement over and over. But 
does this generate a memory leak? Or is the saved plan tied to the 
session and is deallocated when the session ends?

best regards

Ernst-Georg

view thread (9+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected]
  Subject: Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox