Re: short-cutting if sum()>constant

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:00:31 +0100
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail@webthatworks.it> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:47:18 +0100
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello
> > 
> > I found one ugly trick. You can multiply lines and SUM > cons
> > could be replaced limit clause:
> 
> The trick is really smart (and fun), kudos, really, it's always a
> pleasure to read your solutions, thanks.
> 
> But as expected:

as unexpected...

> test=# create or replace function tano(a int, out b int)                                       ^^^ should be anything
buta
 
> returns int as
> $$
> declare
>         row record;
> begin
>     b :=0;
>         for row in select a as _a from data                        where a>0

>         loop
>                 b := row._a + b;
>                 if (b>=a) then
>                         return;
>                 end if;
>         end loop;
>         return;
> end;
> $$ language plpgsql;

Making it longer to better appreciate the difference: 1M rows where
a [0,2]

select * from tano((1000000)::int);   b
---------1000001
(1 row)

Time: 1235.243 ms

select sum(x) from (select 1 as x,(a =
generate_series(1,a))::int from data limit 1000000) s;  sum
---------1000000
(1 row)

Time: 1309.441 ms

Being fair once you add the where clause to the generate_series
version the difference in performance is negligible and saying that
the plpgsql version is faster would require some more serious
benchmarking.

Surprised! If the generate_series can compete with the plpgsql for
loop... why is the plpgsql version so "slow"?

-- 
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it