Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-14 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello, with IMMUTABLE or STABLE function is only 7% slowly. It can be usefull add into documentation so default flag is immutable, but if its not necessary its recommended IMMUTABLE or STABLE flag. Regards Pavel Stehule ---(end of

[HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Pavel Stehule
Hello, I have small piece of code for testing speed of stored procedures. First time used its for compare mysql5 and postgresql. One year ago (feb.2004) was PostgreSQL much faster than mysql5. Now I was surprised. Mysql was faster. Mysql's developers did some work, but plpgsql is slowly than

Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Tom Lane
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION delitel(int, int) RETURNS int AS ' DECLARE a integer; b integer; BEGIN a := $1; b := $2; WHILE a b LOOP IF a b THEN a := a - b; ELSE b := b - a; END IF; END LOOP; RETURN a; END; ' LANGUAGE plpgsql; And? (ie,

Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Tom Lane
Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And? (ie, what test case are you talking about?) This test is function for searching max factor. It is speaking only about quality of interpret an language. I would ask why? So I can replicate your test. regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Pavel Stehule
And? (ie, what test case are you talking about?) regards, tom lane This test is function for searching max factor. It is speaking only about quality of interpret an language. I would ask why? If I need solve fast this task I can write C function. What is reason

Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:05:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Pavel Stehule [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And? (ie, what test case are you talking about?) This test is function for searching max factor. It is speaking only about quality of interpret an language. I would ask why? So I can

Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Pavel Stehule
I don't thing so differention on speed depends on compilation or other options. I compile 8.0 and 7.4.6 from source today. I didn't use any option for configure. But the difference is too big for optimalizations. [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# uname -a Linux stehule.fsv.cvut.cz 2.6.4 #1 SMP Mon Mar

Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Fuhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: SELECT delitel(100, 1); Mean times over the last five of six runs on my poor 500MHz FreeBSD 4.11-PRERELEASE box: 6741 ms 7.4.6 (from FreeBSD ports collection) 14427 ms 8.0.0rc5 (from CVS source) When I add IMMUTABLE to the function definition,

Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Michael Fuhr wrote: On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:05:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: SELECT delitel(100, 1); Mean times over the last five of six runs on my poor 500MHz FreeBSD 4.11-PRERELEASE box: 6741 ms 7.4.6 (from FreeBSD ports collection) 14427 ms 8.0.0rc5 (from CVS source) Looks like

Re: [HACKERS] Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster)

2005-01-13 Thread Michael Fuhr
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 06:25:10PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Michael Fuhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 6741 ms 7.4.6 (from FreeBSD ports collection) 14427 ms 8.0.0rc5 (from CVS source) When I add IMMUTABLE to the function definition, I get much closer times. Indeed -- adding IMMUTABLE