From: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Speed of different procedural language
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:08:23 +0100
Message-ID: <20051222010823.GA6103@uio.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051221221028.GA60176@winnie.fuhr.org>
References: <do2cr4$sc5$1@news.hub.org>
<20051221110647.GA17360@uio.no>
<20051221212442.GA59736@winnie.fuhr.org>
<20051221213810.GA27113@uio.no>
<20051221221028.GA60176@winnie.fuhr.org>
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:10:28PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
>> 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.
I'm not sure if I have the code anymore (it was under 7.4 or 8.0), but it was
largely scanning through ~2 million rows once, noting differences from the
previous rows as it went.
In that case, I didn't benchmark against any of the other PL/* languages, but
it was pretty clear that even on a pretty speedy Opteron, it was CPU bound,
which it really shouldn't have been.
/* 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: <20051222010823.GA6103@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