Re: speed of server side languages

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Val Ventura <darkcity(at)houston(dot)rr(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: speed of server side languages
Date: 2002-10-07 17:10:46
Message-ID: 3DA1C016.42A202E0@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> darkcity(at)houston(dot)rr(dot)com (Val Ventura) writes:
> > I am new to PostgreSQL and I'm looking to port a MSSQL database. I am
> > currently working on the stored procedures, and I'm trying to
> > understand when and why I should choose SQL vs. PL/pgSQL vs. all the
> > others, as far as performance goes.
>
> For stuff that involves database accesses, plpgsql will almost always
> win, because it's the only one we have that caches query plans.

It's the only one that does the caching automatically. PL/Tcl has
separate commands for preparing and executing plans, and the programmer
has to put all the logic into his procedure.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vincent Stoessel 2002-10-07 17:14:31 Postgresql's jdbc driver: 2.0 compliant?
Previous Message Nigel J. Andrews 2002-10-07 16:24:32 Re: Efficient date range search?