On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:10:28PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
>> 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.
I'm not sure if I have the code anymore (it was under 7.4 or 8.0), but it was
largely scanning through ~2 million rows once, noting differences from the
previous rows as it went.
In that case, I didn't benchmark against any of the other PL/* languages, but
it was pretty clear that even on a pretty speedy Opteron, it was CPU bound,
which it really shouldn't have been.
/* Steinar */
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Harry Jackson||Date: 2005-12-22 01:20:16|
|Subject: CPU and RAM|
|Previous:||From: Carlos Benkendorf||Date: 2005-12-22 00:35:00|
|Subject: Re: ORDER BY costs |