From: hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz@gmail.com>
To: Simon Dale <sdale@rm.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Stored Procedure Performance
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:58:33 +0200
Message-ID: <9e4684ce0604110058r371c5dbib531d5409a47a399@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <416F947BF5BA9E40B5F9AA649422212E074DE930@ex-mail2.internal.rmplc.net>
References: <416F947BF5BA9E40B5F9AA649422212E074DE930@ex-mail2.internal.rmplc.net>
On 4/11/06, Simon Dale <sdale@rm.com> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to evaluate PostgreSQL as a database that will have to store a
> high volume of data and access that data frequently. One of the features on
> our wish list is to be able to use stored procedures to access the data and
> I was wondering if it is usual for stored procedures to perform slower on
> PostgreSQL than raw SQL?
>
worry but your benchmark is completelly flawed.
1st. the tables are empty. will you ever run the real code on empty tables?
2nd. do you really need a stored procedure for such a simple query?
testing something that's far from real usage will not give you any good.
return next will of course show up as slower than standard select. the thing
is - will the relative slowness of return next matter to you when you will
put more logic in the procedure?
depesz
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: depesz@gmail.com, sdale@rm.com
Subject: Re: Stored Procedure Performance
In-Reply-To: <9e4684ce0604110058r371c5dbib531d5409a47a399@mail.gmail.com>
* 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