| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 |