| From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Speed of different procedural language |
| Date: | 2005-12-21 22:10:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20051221221028.GA60176@winnie.fuhr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:38:10PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:24:42PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> > The difference is clear only in specific cases; just because you
> > saw a 10x increase in some cases doesn't mean you can expect that
> > kind of increase, or indeed any increase, in others. I've seen
> > PL/pgSQL beat all other PL/* challengers handily many times,
> > especially when the function does a lot of querying and looping
> > through large result sets.
>
> That's funny, my biggest problems with PL/PgSQL have been (among others)
> exactly with large result sets...
Out of curiosity, do you have a simple test case? I'd be interested
in seeing what you're doing in PL/pgSQL that's contradicting what
I'm seeing.
--
Michael Fuhr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | William Yu | 2005-12-21 23:57:56 | Re: What's the best hardver for PostgreSQL 8.1? |
| Previous Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-12-21 21:38:10 | Re: Speed of different procedural language |