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 6FA369DC84A for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:08:23 -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 59083-05 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:08:26 -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 B0B649DCB82 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:08:20 -0400 (AST) Received: from trofast.sesse.net ([129.241.93.32]) by cassarossa.samfundet.no with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EpEwR-0005gB-8f for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:08:23 +0100 Received: from sesse by trofast.sesse.net with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EpEwR-0001dq-00 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:08:23 +0100 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 02:08:23 +0100 From: "Steinar H. Gunderson" To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Speed of different procedural language Message-ID: <20051222010823.GA6103@uio.no> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20051221110647.GA17360@uio.no> <20051221212442.GA59736@winnie.fuhr.org> <20051221213810.GA27113@uio.no> <20051221221028.GA60176@winnie.fuhr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051221221028.GA60176@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=0.045 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045] X-Spam-Score: 0.045 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/549 X-Sequence-Number: 16370 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/