| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: final patch - plpgsql: for-in-array |
| Date: | 2010-11-18 18:03:28 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikQ6i249VQrYceJV8JuL1h5das2EHJpe+MZGAfj@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/11/18 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I would *much* rather we get the performance benefit by internal
>> optimization, and forego inventing syntax.
>
> +1.
any optimization will be about 10-20% slower than direct access. See
my tests: on large arrays isn't significant if you use a simple
expression or full query. This is just overhead from building a
"tuplestore" and access to data via cursor. And you cannot to change a
SRF functions to returns just array. I would to see any optimization
on this level, but I think so it's unreal expecting.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2010-11-18 18:12:43 | Re: Indent authentication overloading |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-11-18 18:01:45 | Re: Indent authentication overloading |