Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail(at)webthatworks(dot)it>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text
Date: 2010-01-27 15:37:23
Message-ID: 4B605DB3.6050807@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> 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?

Currently, there's no difference in terms of memory needs. The backend
always materializes the result of a SRF into a tuplestore anyway, if the
function didn't do it itself. There has been discussion of optimizing
away that materialization step, but no-one has come up with an
acceptable patch for that yet.

There probably isn't much difference in CPU usage either.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-01-27 15:41:16 make everything target
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2010-01-27 15:34:10 Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text