From: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Speed of different procedural language
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:38:10 +0100
Message-ID: <20051221213810.GA27113@uio.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051221212442.GA59736@winnie.fuhr.org>
References: <do2cr4$sc5$1@news.hub.org>
<20051221110647.GA17360@uio.no>
<20051221212442.GA59736@winnie.fuhr.org>
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:24:42PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> The difference is clear only in specific cases; just because you
> saw a 10x increase in some cases doesn't mean you can expect that
> kind of increase, or indeed any increase, in others. I've seen
> PL/pgSQL beat all other PL/* challengers handily many times,
> especially when the function does a lot of querying and looping
> through large result sets.
That's funny, my biggest problems with PL/PgSQL have been (among others)
exactly with large result sets...
Anyhow, the general idea is: It _does_ matter which one you use, so you'd
better test if it matters to you :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
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: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: sgunderson@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: Speed of different procedural language
In-Reply-To: <20051221213810.GA27113@uio.no>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox