Performance: sql functions v. plpgsql v. plperl
От | Joel Burton |
---|---|
Тема | Performance: sql functions v. plpgsql v. plperl |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0104240944170.11638-100000@olympus.scw.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Performance: sql functions v. plpgsql v. plperl
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Last night, I was doing some amateurish benchmarking and found that, contrary to my (admittedly uninformed) expectation, sql functions seem *slower* than plsql functions. Even for very simple things, like 'SELECT CASE WHEN $1 RETURN $1 ELSE $2 END' were slower than the plsql begin if $1 then return $1; else return $2; end if; end; by about 15%. However, my benchmarking was the type usually dreaded: a single person, playing around in a scripting language, running the test one a time seqeuentially, and just timing the results. Is there any real data on this? I also tried plperl v plpgsql, and found that, probably not surprisingly, there was about a 15% advantage to plpgsql. Of course, many things can be written much simpler in perl (such as string handling functions). Even so, though, a find-the-first-letter-of-all-significant-words function written about 1.5 years ago in plpgsql (a pretty awful, nested, letter-by-letter parser) was only about twice as slow as the perl split() replacement. Looks like our little plpgsql is quite a speed demon. (as always, IANAPB [ I am not a professional benchmarker ], YMMV) -- Joel Burton <jburton@scw.org> Director of Information Systems, Support Center of Washington
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: