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

Re: Speed of different procedural language

From: "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Speed of different procedural language
Date: 2005-12-22 01:08:23
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
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 JacksonDate: 2005-12-22 01:20:16
Subject: CPU and RAM
Previous:From: Carlos BenkendorfDate: 2005-12-22 00:35:00
Subject: Re: ORDER BY costs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group