X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D944611F6089 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:36:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 82170-09 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:36:25 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE25311F6093 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:36:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3Q2aLoT011515; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:36:21 -0400 (EDT) To: David Wheeler cc: pgsql-performance Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update In-reply-to: <8FE57896-2F9B-4838-857B-FA6CC2EE162A@kineticode.com> References: <11055.1146014387@sss.pgh.pa.us> <8FE57896-2F9B-4838-857B-FA6CC2EE162A@kineticode.com> Comments: In-reply-to David Wheeler message dated "Tue, 25 Apr 2006 19:27:48 -0700" Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:36:21 -0400 Message-ID: <11514.1146018981@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200604/594 X-Sequence-Number: 18678 David Wheeler writes: > Just on a lark, I tried to get this to work: > try=# explain analyze EXECUTE foo(1, ARRAY > [600001,600002,600003,600004,600005,600006,600007]); > QUERY PLAN > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- > Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=26.241..26.251 > rows=1 loops=1) > Total runtime: 27.512 ms > (2 rows) > That's not much use. It looks like you had something trivial as the definition of foo(). Try one of the actual queries from the plpgsql function. regards, tom lane