Re: Bulk persistence strategy

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Riaan Stander <rstander(at)exa(dot)co(dot)za>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bulk persistence strategy
Date: 2017-05-21 14:33:06
Message-ID: 32403.1495377186@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Riaan Stander <rstander(at)exa(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> I've come up with generating functions on the go, but I'm concerned about
> the performance impact of this. I first wanted to use an anonoumys code
> block, but then I cannot do parameter binding from npgsql.
> ...
> Is there a better way I'm missing and is "temp" function creation in
> Postgres a big performance concern, especially if a server is under load?

The function itself is only one pg_proc row, but if you're expecting
to do this thousands of times a minute you might have to adjust autovacuum
settings to avoid bad bloat in pg_proc.

If you're intending that these functions be use-once, it's fairly unclear
to me why you bother, as opposed to just issuing the underlying SQL
statements.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Riaan Stander 2017-05-21 19:29:53 Re: Bulk persistence strategy
Previous Message Rick Otten 2017-05-21 13:53:23 Re: pg_stat_statements with fetch