Mark Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... The correct numbers should be:
> Postgres PL/PGSQL original numeric: 14.8 seconds
> Postgres PL/PGSQL modified numeric: 14.0 seconds
> Postgres PL/PGSQL float8: 10.7 seconds
> GNU AWK: 2.5 seconds
> Oracle PL/SQL number: 2.0 seconds
> This means that Tom Lane was absolutely right - for the current numeric type
> implementation, palloc() overhead is not a dominant concern. A serious
> solution needs to change the internal format to use a larger base, as Tom
> suggested.
What do you get if you use int4 in PL/PGSQL? The above numbers look to
me like the real problem may be PL/PGSQL interpretation overhead, and
not the datatype at all...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
