From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Eliot Gable <egable+pgsql-performance@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Function Language Performance: C vs PL/PGSQL
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 12:47:16 -0400
Message-ID: <20100526164716.GC21875@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinskJ9en0Mstxp96ZNYywRkucuM0Hn74IN1Lh_H@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinPXHz0GMP6J6eWksip54AiCImJVNO4Yf4vzFm4@mail.gmail.com>
<20100526161839.GA21875@tamriel.snowman.net>
<AANLkTilqE1ODTmCtAqY6oUDnSYruapc6UdO0_ROf1-li@mail.gmail.com>
<20100526163251.GB21875@tamriel.snowman.net>
<AANLkTinskJ9en0Mstxp96ZNYywRkucuM0Hn74IN1Lh_H@mail.gmail.com>
* Eliot Gable (egable+pgsql-performance@gmail.com) wrote:
> Since PostgreSQL is written in C, I assume there is no
> such additional overhead. I assume that the PL/PGSQL implementation at its
> heart also uses SPI to perform those executions. Is that a fair statement?
Right, but I also wouldn't expect a huge improvment either, unless
you're calling these queries a ton, or the queries that you're calling
from the pl/pgsql are pretty short-lived.
Don't get me wrong, C is going to be faster, but it depends on exactly
what's going on as to if it's going to be an overall improvment of, say,
10%, or a 10-fold improvment. :)
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 196B) download
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: sfrost@snowman.net, egable+pgsql-performance@gmail.com
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Function Language Performance: C vs PL/PGSQL
In-Reply-To: <20100526164716.GC21875@tamriel.snowman.net>
* 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