On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 11:53, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. > I was really hoping for a "Good job and glad to hear it" from you :-)
I don't think there is anything unrealistic about my function or its testing, as it is very much along the lines of the types of things we do now. I will really try to do some profiling this week to help figure out what is going on. Scott -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Cain, Ph. D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] GMOD Coordinator (http://www.gmod.org/) 216-392-3087 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
