DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk;
	h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
	b=2ca2isfBtHmJciMjTVNy1UBaUmGGGA4A4sejKDe6Rg6zTx04Gpqa+Sl3nEIiF8rBMBzrUkdj//4c8vBAF/RhaaXxhbmIU3qk/9OhyTicSeny9qsfrItXM5OI4993QIgSnM8OfySuEo9NpyFfDx0NNVo5tF+SPPDzcJazSJ24Bjk=;
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:19:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: Valentin Bogdanov <valiouk@yahoo.co.uk>
Reply-To: valiouk@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: Perl/DBI vs Native
To: psql performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <768129.60859.qm@web25802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Hi,

I have ran quite a few tests comparing how long a query takes to execute fr=
om Perl/DBI as compared to psql/pqlib. No matter how many times I run the t=
est the results were always the same.

I run a SELECT all on a fairly big table and enabled the log_min_duration_s=
tatement option. With psql postgres consistently logs half a second while t=
he exact same query executed with Perl/DBI takes again consistently 2 secon=
ds.

If I were timing the applications I would have been too much surprised by t=
hese results, obviously, processing with Perl would be slower than a native=
 application. But it's the postmaster that gives these results. Could it be=
 because the DBI module is slower at assimilating the data?

Any light on the subject would be greatly appreciated.


Regards,

Val=0A=0A=0A      _________________________________________________________=
_=0ANot happy with your email address?.=0AGet the one you really want - mil=
lions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.c=
om/ymail/new.html