From: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Speed of different procedural language
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:10:28 -0700
Message-ID: <20051221221028.GA60176@winnie.fuhr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051221213810.GA27113@uio.no>
References: <do2cr4$sc5$1@news.hub.org>
<20051221110647.GA17360@uio.no>
<20051221212442.GA59736@winnie.fuhr.org>
<20051221213810.GA27113@uio.no>
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:38:10PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> 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...
Out of curiosity, do you have a simple test case? I'd be interested
in seeing what you're doing in PL/pgSQL that's contradicting what
I'm seeing.
--
Michael Fuhr
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: mike@fuhr.org
Subject: Re: Speed of different procedural language
In-Reply-To: <20051221221028.GA60176@winnie.fuhr.org>
* 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