From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Val Ventura <darkcity(at)houston(dot)rr(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: speed of server side languages |
Date: | 2002-10-07 17:10:46 |
Message-ID: | 3DA1C016.42A202E0@Yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> darkcity(at)houston(dot)rr(dot)com (Val Ventura) writes:
> > I am new to PostgreSQL and I'm looking to port a MSSQL database. I am
> > currently working on the stored procedures, and I'm trying to
> > understand when and why I should choose SQL vs. PL/pgSQL vs. all the
> > others, as far as performance goes.
>
> For stuff that involves database accesses, plpgsql will almost always
> win, because it's the only one we have that caches query plans.
It's the only one that does the caching automatically. PL/Tcl has
separate commands for preparing and executing plans, and the programmer
has to put all the logic into his procedure.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vincent Stoessel | 2002-10-07 17:14:31 | Postgresql's jdbc driver: 2.0 compliant? |
Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-10-07 16:24:32 | Re: Efficient date range search? |