From: | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail(at)webthatworks(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text |
Date: | 2010-01-27 15:28:24 |
Message-ID: | 20100127162824.62d43b39@dawn.webthatworks.it |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:10:01 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> There are quite a few SRF functions in the code. Look for example
> in contrib/hstore/hstore_op.c for some fairly simple examples.
> SRFs are quite capable of returning huge resultsets, not just
> small ones. Example code for matrerialize mode can be found in the
> PLs among other places (e.g. plperl_return_next() )
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?
Is there a rule of thumb to chose between one mode or the other?
thanks
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-01-27 15:34:10 | Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-27 15:27:51 | pgsql: Make standby server continuously retry restoring the next WAL |