From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
Date: | 2010-11-18 16:37:06 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTik4_Vx44dePKTFtGhLtnsBKHzO-0jM_KQEyfzhJ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/11/18 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Yes, which begs the question of why bother at all.
>
>> Pavel's performance argument is imnsho valid.
>
> Well, that argument is unsupported by any evidence, so far as I've seen.
>
> More to the point, if there is indeed an interesting performance win
> here, we could get the same win by internally optimizing the existing
> syntax. That would provide the benefit to existing code not just
> new code; and it would avoid foreclosing our future options for
> extending FOR in not-so-redundant ways.
sorry, but I don't agree. I don't think, so there are some big space
for optimizing - and if then it means much more code complexity for
current expr executor. Next - FOR IN ARRAY takes fields from array on
request - and it is possible, because a unpacking of array is
controlled by statement - it's impossible do same when unpacking is
inside other functions with same effectivity.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2010-11-18 16:44:28 | Re: EXPLAIN and nfiltered |
Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-11-18 16:37:01 | Re: EXPLAIN and nfiltered |