X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD33CD97E5;
	Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:55:46 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 56172-05; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 06:55:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from tigger.fuhr.org (tigger.fuhr.org [63.214.45.158])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEEF4D6D96;
	Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:55:44 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (winnie.fuhr.org [10.1.0.1])
	by tigger.fuhr.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j9Q6thNe003850
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);
	Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:55:45 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org)
Received: from winnie.fuhr.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9Q6tgUG019482;
	Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:55:42 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from mfuhr@winnie.fuhr.org)
Received: (from mfuhr@localhost)
	by winnie.fuhr.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j9Q6tgpf019481;
	Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:55:42 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from mfuhr)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:55:42 -0600
From: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pl/* overhead ...
Message-ID: <20051026065542.GA19386@winnie.fuhr.org>
References: <20051026005729.V993@ganymede.hub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20051026005729.V993@ganymede.hub.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200510/309
X-Sequence-Number: 23162

On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:58:13AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Does anyone know of, or have, any comparisions of the overhead going with 
> something like pl/perl or pl/php vs using pl/pgsql?

Benchmark results will probably depend on the type of processing
you're doing.  I'd expect PL/pgSQL to be faster at database operations
like looping through query results, and other languages to be faster
at non-database operations like text munging and number crunching,
depending on the particular language's strengths.

[Does quick test.]

Whale oil beef hooked.  PL/pgSQL just outran PL/Perl when I expected
the latter to win.  Hang on, let me play with it until it comes back
with the results I want....

-- 
Michael Fuhr