X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA3979DCC17 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:38:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22928-09 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:38:12 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from cassarossa.samfundet.no (cassarossa.samfundet.no [129.241.93.19]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BBF9DCC09 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:38:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from trofast.ipv6.sesse.net ([2001:700:300:dc03:20e:cff:fe36:a766] helo=trofast.sesse.net) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EpBez-0007f6-Rf for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:38:10 +0100 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EpBf0-00075y-00 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:38:10 +0100 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:38:10 +0100 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Speed of different procedural language Message-ID: <20051221213810.GA27113@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20051221110647.GA17360@uio.no> <20051221212442.GA59736@winnie.fuhr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051221212442.GA59736@winnie.fuhr.org> X-Operating-System: Linux 2.6.14.3 on a x86_64 X-Message-Flag: Outlook? --> http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.034 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034] X-Spam-Score: 0.034 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/545 X-Sequence-Number: 16366 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/