Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4B605DB3.6050807@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text (Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail@webthatworks.it>) |
Ответы |
Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote: > 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? Currently, there's no difference in terms of memory needs. The backend always materializes the result of a SRF into a tuplestore anyway, if the function didn't do it itself. There has been discussion of optimizing away that materialization step, but no-one has come up with an acceptable patch for that yet. There probably isn't much difference in CPU usage either. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: