Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?

From: Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks>
To: pgchem pgchem <pgchem(at)tuschehund(dot)de>
Cc: "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 12:03:41
Message-ID: CADK3HH+_Vi4uoRaQmDSNPoZfAvm8A_NLQ87=EaXv1DxxXYrmsQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 07:33, pgchem pgchem <pgchem(at)tuschehund(dot)de> wrote:

> Hello Dave,
>
> > It would be infinitely easier to answer this question if you posted both
> functions and the plans
>
> before posting lengthy code to the list, I just wanted to verify
> beforehand that this is not a well known issue.
>
Fair. So to answer your question. The C function should be faster.

Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-04-12 12:19:15 Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?
Previous Message pgchem pgchem 2023-04-12 11:33:42 Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL?