Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
Cc: pgchem pgchem <pgchem(at)tuschehund(dot)de>, "pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?
Date: 2023-04-12 12:19:15
Message-ID: 826406.1681301955@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks> writes:
> Fair. So to answer your question. The C function should be faster.

If we exclude basic coding errors (i.e. not really "equivalent"
processing) then a possible theory is that plpgsql is being careful
to cache a query plan that your C code is causing to be recomputed
each time. But yeah, all else being equal plpgsql should be slower.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pgchem pgchem 2023-04-13 09:31:27 Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2023-04-12 12:03:41 Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?