Tom Lane wrote:
I'd expect plpgsql to suck at purely computational tasks, compared to
the other PLs, but to win at tasks involving database access. These
There you go...pl/pgsql is pretty much required learning (it's not
hard). For classic data processing tasks, it is without peer. I would
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:10:21AM -, Ben Trewern wrote:
I know I should be writing these in C but that's a bit beyond me. I was
going to try PL/Python or PL/Perl or even PL/Ruby. Has anyone any idea
which language is fastest, or is the data access going to swamp the overhead
of small
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:10:21AM -, Ben Trewern wrote:
I know I should be writing these in C but that's a bit beyond me. I
was
going to try PL/Python or PL/Perl or even PL/Ruby. Has anyone any
idea
which language is fastest, or is the data access going to swamp the
overhead
of
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:06:47PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:10:21AM -, Ben Trewern wrote:
I know I should be writing these in C but that's a bit beyond me. I was
going to try PL/Python or PL/Perl or even PL/Ruby. Has anyone any idea
which
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:24:42PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
The difference is clear only in specific cases; just because you
saw a 10x increase in some cases doesn't mean you can expect that
kind of increase, or indeed any increase, in others. I've seen
PL/pgSQL beat all other PL/*
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:38:10PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 02:24:42PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
The difference is clear only in specific cases; just because you
saw a 10x increase in some cases doesn't mean you can expect that
kind of increase, or indeed
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:10:28PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
That's funny, my biggest problems with PL/PgSQL have been (among others)
exactly with large result sets...
Out of curiosity, do you have a simple test case? I'd be interested
in seeing what you're doing in PL/pgSQL that's
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:08:23AM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:10:28PM -0700, Michael Fuhr wrote:
That's funny, my biggest problems with PL/PgSQL have been (among others)
exactly with large result sets...
Out of curiosity, do you have a simple test case?
Michael Fuhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Try looping through two million rows with PL/Perl or PL/Tcl and
you'll probably see significantly worse performance than with
PL/pgSQL -- so much worse that I'd be surprised to see those languages
make up the difference with whatever processing they'd be
I have a few small functions which I need to write. They will be hopefully
quick running but will happen on almost every delete, insert and update on
my database (for audit purposes).
I know I should be writing these in C but that's a bit beyond me. I was
going to try PL/Python or PL/Perl or
10 matches
Mail list logo
