Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update
Date: 2006-04-26 02:36:21
Message-ID: 11514.1146018981@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> Just on a lark, I tried to get this to work:

> try=# explain analyze EXECUTE foo(1, ARRAY 
> [600001,600002,600003,600004,600005,600006,600007]);
>                                        QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
> --------------
> Result  (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=26.241..26.251  
> rows=1 loops=1)
> Total runtime: 27.512 ms
> (2 rows)

> That's not much use.

It looks like you had something trivial as the definition of foo().
Try one of the actual queries from the plpgsql function.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ron PeacetreeDate: 2006-04-26 03:07:17
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Previous:From: David WheelerDate: 2006-04-26 02:27:48
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group