Re: Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <jim(dot)nasby(at)openscg(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)
Date: 2017-04-06 16:04:45
Message-ID: 38847a3b-49ec-3c56-06fc-63956be9daca@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/6/17 03:50, Craig Ringer wrote:
> But otherwise, pending docs changes, I think it's ready for committer.

My opinion is still that this is ultimately the wrong approach. The
right fix for performance issues in PL/Python is to change PL/Python not
to materialize the list of tuples. Now with this change we would be
moving from two result materializations to one, but I think we are
keeping the wrong one.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Keith Fiske 2017-04-06 16:07:57 Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-04-06 16:03:51 Re: Duplicate usage of tablespace location?