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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


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 © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group