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 <pgsql-interfaces-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1pmYIH-0003LY-Cs
	for pgsql-interfaces@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:05:41 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-interfaces-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1pmYIG-0001E6-0W
	for pgsql-interfaces@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:05:40 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <davecramer@postgres.rocks>)
	id 1pmYIF-0001Df-PL
	for pgsql-interfaces@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:05:39 +0000
Received: from pgintl.fastcrypt.com ([149.56.129.164])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2)
	(envelope-from <davecramer@postgres.rocks>)
	id 1pmYIB-002QSB-TE
	for pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 11:05:39 +0000
Received: from mail-ej1-f48.google.com (mail-ej1-f48.google.com
 [209.85.218.48])
	by pgintl.fastcrypt.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6C7D20030
	for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:05:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f48.google.com with SMTP id q23so18301759ejz.3
        for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
 Wed, 12 Apr 2023 04:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9frzf+wGOO4ZjVm1pKIIPT6ozwiEqLjEyZUMIP4I2+EYI1s0JAn
	ip5JoFQ7j5SLydN0FKd3PzCALN0d0T5iovSSuig=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: 
 AKy350ZSD4V1l4j17EoqHobkMVj2Zz18QSLO9oebfIOcMf6ApkDFitwRWwwtHKKgU+tasiwNYg/HdmJCLSsnSNp8HdI=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9519:b0:932:38d5:ff86 with SMTP id
 u25-20020a170906951900b0093238d5ff86mr3063459ejx.5.1681297532610; Wed, 12 Apr
 2023 04:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <607407366.2321178.1681284910101@webmail.strato.de>
In-Reply-To: <607407366.2321178.1681284910101@webmail.strato.de>
From: Dave Cramer <davecramer@postgres.rocks>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 07:05:14 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: 
 <CADK3HHJ0HtYy=6ErV69v9Emj2VsEkpJwvvcE-Rx9n1sDAAGrfw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: 
 <CADK3HHJ0HtYy=6ErV69v9Emj2VsEkpJwvvcE-Rx9n1sDAAGrfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?
To: pgchem pgchem <pgchem@tuschehund.de>
Cc: "pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org" <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000318c1605f92196f0"
List-Id: <pgsql-interfaces.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-interfaces@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-interfaces-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-interfaces>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CADK3HHJ0HtYy%3D6ErV69v9Emj2VsEkpJwvvcE-Rx9n1sDAAGrfw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000318c1605f92196f0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 06:14, pgchem pgchem <pgchem@tuschehund.de> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I have a functionally identical trigger function in PL/pgSQL and C. Now,
> that the C version is about 3x _slower_ (~1500 vs. ~4500 TPS in pgbench)
> than PL/pgSQL comes somewhat unexpected.
>
> It can very well be, that I made a mistake on the C side, but before
> everything else, I'd like to ask if this may be expected behavior. Is it
> plausible that PL/pgSQL is so much faster than C when used in a trigger
> function?
>
It would be infinitely easier to answer this question if you posted both
functions and the plans

Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks


> best regards
>
> Ernst-Georg
>
>

--000000000000318c1605f92196f0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 =
at 06:14, pgchem pgchem &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pgchem@tuschehund.de">pgchem@=
tuschehund.de</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><u></u>

 =20
  =20
=20
 <div>
  <div>
   Hello all,
  </div>=20
  <div>
   =C2=A0
  </div>=20
  <div>
   I have a functionally identical trigger function in PL/pgSQL and C. Now,=
 that the C version is about 3x _slower_ (~1500 vs. ~4500 TPS in pgbench) t=
han PL/pgSQL comes somewhat unexpected.
  </div>=20
  <div>
   =C2=A0
  </div>=20
  <div>
   It can very well be, that I made a mistake on the C side, but before eve=
rything else, I&#39;d like to ask if this may be expected behavior. Is it p=
lausible that PL/pgSQL is so much faster than C when used in a trigger func=
tion?</div></div></blockquote><div>It would be infinitely=C2=A0easier to an=
swer this question if you posted both functions and the plans=C2=A0</div><d=
iv><br class=3D"gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">Dave Cramer<div>www.postgr=
es.rocks</div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex"><div><div>
  </div>=20
  <div>
   =C2=A0
  </div>=20
  <div>
   best regards
  </div>=20
  <div>
   =C2=A0
  </div>=20
  <div>
   Ernst-Georg
  </div>=20
  <div>
   =C2=A0
  </div>=20
 </div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>

--000000000000318c1605f92196f0--