Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZCm-000798-6B for pgsql-interfaces@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:04:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZCl-00031h-4e for pgsql-interfaces@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:04:03 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZCk-00031X-TT for pgsql-interfaces@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:04:02 +0000 Received: from pgintl.fastcrypt.com ([149.56.129.164]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1pmZCi-0008PW-RY for pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:04:01 +0000 Received: from mail-ej1-f45.google.com (mail-ej1-f45.google.com [209.85.218.45]) by pgintl.fastcrypt.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A4C1D201AB for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ej1-f45.google.com with SMTP id qa44so27857996ejc.4 for ; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:03:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9eiXduAIQmbpHhjJBhGdFMlZx/Pz34SRRH+5GOrm6Cm6EAZidAd I6c8JzinHNmnKjHuQzLOGH8toq5w2aYr6STX6j8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350b4kNmAzSmYO8YCg3vtjK8DlMa6jF62fNHAQv3fIGlK0r+bHuxZTbBfFZSxbaLWIKirKm4qtznQz37ci3mCxEg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:5913:b0:931:fb3c:f88d with SMTP id h19-20020a170906591300b00931fb3cf88dmr1116809ejq.5.1681301038421; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 05:03:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <607407366.2321178.1681284910101@webmail.strato.de> <538907970.2383682.1681299222931@webmail.strato.de> In-Reply-To: <538907970.2383682.1681299222931@webmail.strato.de> From: Dave Cramer Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 08:03:41 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL? To: pgchem pgchem Cc: "pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027dfe705f92267a4" List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk --00000000000027dfe705f92267a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 07:33, pgchem pgchem wrote: > Hello Dave, > > > It would be infinitely easier to answer this question if you posted both > functions and the plans > > before posting lengthy code to the list, I just wanted to verify > beforehand that this is not a well known issue. > Fair. So to answer your question. The C function should be faster. Dave Cramer www.postgres.rocks --00000000000027dfe705f92267a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 = at 07:33, pgchem pgchem <pgchem@= tuschehund.de> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
Hello Dave,
=20
=C2=A0
=20
> It would be infinitely=C2=A0easier to answer this question if you p= osted both functions and the plans=C2=A0
=20
=C2=A0
=20
before posting lengthy code to the list, I just wanted to verify beforeh= and that this is not a well known issue.
=20
Fair. So to answer your question. The C fu= nction should be faster.


Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks
<= blockquote>
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20 =20
--00000000000027dfe705f92267a4--