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 1B52B9DC84B for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:10:33 -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 31216-02 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:10:34 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from tigger.fuhr.org (tigger.fuhr.org [63.214.45.158]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 737119DC84A for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:10:30 -0400 (AST) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (winnie.fuhr.org [10.1.0.1]) by tigger.fuhr.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jBLMAT2V097274 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:10:32 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jBLMATk7060302 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:10:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org) Received: (from mfuhr@localhost) by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id jBLMAShI060301 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:10:28 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from mfuhr) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:10:28 -0700 From: Michael Fuhr To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Speed of different procedural language Message-ID: <20051221221028.GA60176@winnie.fuhr.org> References: <20051221110647.GA17360@uio.no> <20051221212442.GA59736@winnie.fuhr.org> <20051221213810.GA27113@uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051221213810.GA27113@uio.no> 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: 200512/546 X-Sequence-Number: 16367 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