Re: Performance of c, pl/perl, pl/pgsql
От | Joel Burton |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance of c, pl/perl, pl/pgsql |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0104300919590.6719-100000@olympus.scw.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Performance of c, pl/perl, pl/pgsql (Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@cs.Helsinki.FI>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Einar Karttunen wrote: > Hello > > Has anyone benchmarked how slow/fast the procedural languages are. I know > that pl/perl is probably faster than pl/pgsql. But how much? How much > faster are native c-functions... > > ps. Is there any good documentation on pl/perl. The programmers manual > didn't have much information. No, pl/perl is slower than pl/pgsql: that is, the overhead of calling it for simple functions is more (about 30% more, in some very simple testing I did.) However, since perl has so many built-in fucntions (regexs, great string handling, etc.) any real function that does anything slightly complex should be a great deal faster than pl/pgsql. A pretty straightfoward hash an organization name to their acronym function was about 40% faster in pl/perl. The only native C functions I had to test were the simple ones that come w/PostgreSQL (min(), max(), etc.) They were about twice as fast as a straigtforward plpgsql replacement. Again, take these numbers w/a big grain of salt -- these were off-the-cuff tests I did out of curiosity. You can refer to my posting ~2 weeks ago for more info. -- Joel Burton <jburton@scw.org> Director of Information Systems, Support Center of Washington
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: