Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update
Date: 2006-04-26 02:36:21
Message-ID: 11514.1146018981@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> Just on a lark, I tried to get this to work:

> try=# explain analyze EXECUTE foo(1, ARRAY
> [600001,600002,600003,600004,600005,600006,600007]);
> QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> Result (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=26.241..26.251
> rows=1 loops=1)
> Total runtime: 27.512 ms
> (2 rows)

> That's not much use.

It looks like you had something trivial as the definition of foo().
Try one of the actual queries from the plpgsql function.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Peacetree 2006-04-26 03:07:17 Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Previous Message David Wheeler 2006-04-26 02:27:48 Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update