Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text
От | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo |
---|---|
Тема | Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20100127162824.62d43b39@dawn.webthatworks.it обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text
Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:10:01 -0500 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: > There are quite a few SRF functions in the code. Look for example > in contrib/hstore/hstore_op.c for some fairly simple examples. > SRFs are quite capable of returning huge resultsets, not just > small ones. Example code for matrerialize mode can be found in the > PLs among other places (e.g. plperl_return_next() ) I'm more interested in understanding when I should use materialized mode. eg. I should be more concerned about memory or cpu cycles and what should be taken as a reference to consider memory needs "large"? If for example I was going to split a large TEXT into a set of record (let's say I'm processing csv that has been loaded into a text field)... I'd consider the CPU use "light" but the memory needs "large". Would be this task suited for the materialized mode? Is there a rule of thumb to chose between one mode or the other? thanks -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: