Re: [PERFORMANCE] Stored Procedures

From: Rikard Pavelic <rikard(dot)pavelic(at)zg(dot)htnet(dot)hr>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] Stored Procedures
Date: 2006-01-21 21:06:13
Message-ID: 43D2A245.6040804@zg.htnet.hr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> If you're dealing with something that's performance critical you're not
> going to be constantly re-connecting anyway, so I don't see what the
> issue is.
>

I didn't include mailing list in my second reply :( so here it is again.
Someone may find this interesting...

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2004-04/msg00084.php

From Tom Lane:
"EXECUTE means something different in plpgsql than it does in plain SQL,

and you do not need PREPARE at all in plpgsql. plpgsql's automatic
caching of plans gives you the effect of PREPARE on every statement
without your having to ask for it."

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Constantine Filin 2006-01-21 23:49:52 libpq vs. unixODBC performance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-01-21 20:55:49 Re: [GENERAL] Creation of tsearch2 index is very