Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy
От | Riaan Stander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0e47ae52-e80a-fd8e-021c-7c8cc0495b26@exa.co.za обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Riaan Stander <rstander@exa.co.za> writes:I've come up with generating functions on the go, but I'm concerned about the performance impact of this. I first wanted to use an anonoumys code block, but then I cannot do parameter binding from npgsql. ... Is there a better way I'm missing and is "temp" function creation in Postgres a big performance concern, especially if a server is under load?The function itself is only one pg_proc row, but if you're expecting to do this thousands of times a minute you might have to adjust autovacuum settings to avoid bad bloat in pg_proc. If you're intending that these functions be use-once, it's fairly unclear to me why you bother, as opposed to just issuing the underlying SQL statements. regards, tom lane
The intended use is use-once. The reason is that the statements might differ per call, especially when we start doing updates. The ideal would be to just issue the sql statements, but I was trying to cut down on network calls. To batch them together and get output from one query as input for the others (declare variables), I have to wrap them in a function in Postgres. Or am I missing something? In SQL Server TSQL I could declare variables in any statement as required.
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: