| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | DAVID ROTH <adaptron(at)comcast(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: General Performance Question |
| Date: | 2021-11-18 15:36:31 |
| Message-ID: | 2915805.1637249791@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
DAVID ROTH <adaptron(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
> The code I am migrating uses the EXECUTE immediate form for almost everything. The path of least resistance for me is to just copy the code to Postgres and change "EXECUTE IMMEDIATE" to "EXECUTE".
> I am asking about performance differences to see if it is worth converting code that does not have any dynamic elements.
Yes, absolutely. (I would've imagined that that habit is pretty awful
for performance on Oracle, too.)
Having said that, the golden rule in such things is to get it to work
first, and make it fast later. I wouldn't worry about cleaning up
unnecessary EXECUTE usage till you have a working port.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2021-11-18 15:54:18 | Re: check scripts after database code change |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-18 15:32:36 | Re: pg_restore depending on user functions |