Re: plperl vs plpgsql
От | Alex |
---|---|
Тема | Re: plperl vs plpgsql |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 42625D0F.5050308@meerkatsoft.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: plperl vs plpgsql (Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: plperl vs plpgsql
Re: plperl vs plpgsql |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Is there a performance difference between the two? which of the PL is most widely used. One problem i have with the plpgsql is that the quoting is really a pain. Christopher Browne wrote: >After takin a swig o' Arrakan spice grog, alex@meerkatsoft.com (Alex) belched out: > > >>i am thinking about swiching to plperl as it seems to me much more >>flexible and easier to create functions. >> >>what is the recommended PL for postgres? or which one is most widely >>used / most popular? >>is there a performance difference between plpgsql and plperl ? >> >> > >If what you're trying to do is "munge text," pl/perl will be a whole >lot more suitable than pl/pgsql because it has a rich set of text >mungeing tools and string functions which pl/pgsql lacks. > >If you intend to do a lot of work involving reading unmunged tuples >from this table and that, pl/pgsql provides a much more natural >syntax, and will probably be a bit faster as the query processor may >even be able to expand some of the actions, rather than needing to >treat Perl code as an "opaque blob." > >I would definitely be inclined to use the more natural language for >the given task... > >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: