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