X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0595D1B51B for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:01:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01372-10 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:01:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (unknown [209.128.84.228]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB0BD1B508 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:01:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [66.219.92.2] (HELO temoku) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.2) with ESMTP id 3797639; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:01:31 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Josh Berkus Reply-To: josh@agliodbs.com Organization: Aglio Database Solutions To: Tom Lane , Joe Conway Subject: Re: Which is faster SQL or PL/PGSQL Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:58:38 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: Richard Huxton , Michael Pohl , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, "George A.J" References: <3F942F72.6050709@joeconway.com> <13678.1066679400@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <13678.1066679400@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200310201358.38318.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200310/258 X-Sequence-Number: 15658 Tom, > AFAICS, the whole point of EXECUTE in plpgsql is that it doesn't take > any shortcuts, and so the answer to Josh's question can only be "don't > use EXECUTE"... Yeah, that's what I thought, I was just hoping for some low-hanging fruit. --=20 -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco