From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
Date: | 2010-11-18 16:00:55 |
Message-ID: | 4CE54DB7.9050800@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/18/2010 10:33 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Merlin Moncure<mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Pavel's performance argument is imnsho valid. arrays at present are
>> the best way to pass data around functions and any optimizations here
>> are very welcome. Given that, is there any way to mitigate your
>> concerns on the syntax side?
> Can we get the performance benefit any other way? I hate to think
> that it will still be slow for people using the already-supported
> syntax.
It's not disastrously slower. AFAICT from a very quick glance over the
patch, he's getting the speedup by bypassing the normal mechanism for
evaluating "for x in select ...". So we'd have to special-case that to
trap calls to unnest in the general form. That would be pretty ugly. Or
else make unnest and SPI faster. But that's a much bigger project.
Syntactic sugar is not entirely to be despised, anyway.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cédric Villemain | 2010-11-18 16:02:35 | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-11-18 15:57:53 | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |