From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Cain <cain(at)cshl(dot)org> |
Cc: | PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [SQL] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings |
Date: | 2003-08-04 15:53:43 |
Message-ID: | 3574.1060012423@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-sql |
Scott Cain <cain(at)cshl(dot)org> writes:
> At least this appears to work and is much faster, completing substring
> operations like above in about 0.27 secs (that's about two orders of
> magnitude improvement!)
I find it really, really hard to believe that a crude reimplementation
in plpgsql of the TOAST concept could beat the built-in implementation
at all, let alone beat it by two orders of magnitude.
Either there's something unrealistic about your testing of the
dna_string function, or your original tests are not causing TOAST to be
invoked in the expected way, or there's a bug we need to fix. I'd
really like to see some profiling of the poor-performing
external-storage case, so we can figure out what's going on.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2003-08-04 15:55:48 | Re: [SQL] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings |
Previous Message | Fernando Papa | 2003-08-04 15:26:38 | Re: I can't wait too much: Total runtime 432478.44 msec |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2003-08-04 15:55:48 | Re: [SQL] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings |
Previous Message | Scott Cain | 2003-08-04 15:25:36 | Re: EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings |