Scott Cain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At least this appears to work and is much faster, completing substring
> operations like above in about 0.27 secs (that's about two orders of
> magnitude improvement!)

I find it really, really hard to believe that a crude reimplementation
in plpgsql of the TOAST concept could beat the built-in implementation
at all, let alone beat it by two orders of magnitude.

Either there's something unrealistic about your testing of the
dna_string function, or your original tests are not causing TOAST to be
invoked in the expected way, or there's a bug we need to fix.  I'd
really like to see some profiling of the poor-performing
external-storage case, so we can figure out what's going on.

                        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

Reply via email to