| 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 11:05:14 |
| Message-ID: | CADK3HHJ0HtYy=6ErV69v9Emj2VsEkpJwvvcE-Rx9n1sDAAGrfw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 06:14, pgchem pgchem <pgchem(at)tuschehund(dot)de> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have a functionally identical trigger function in PL/pgSQL and C. Now,
> that the C version is about 3x _slower_ (~1500 vs. ~4500 TPS in pgbench)
> than PL/pgSQL comes somewhat unexpected.
>
> It can very well be, that I made a mistake on the C side, but before
> everything else, I'd like to ask if this may be expected behavior. Is it
> plausible that PL/pgSQL is so much faster than C when used in a trigger
> function?
>
It would be infinitely easier to answer this question if you posted both
functions and the plans
Dave Cramer
www.postgres.rocks
> best regards
>
> Ernst-Georg
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | pgchem pgchem | 2023-04-12 11:33:42 | Re: C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL? |
| Previous Message | pgchem pgchem | 2023-04-12 07:35:10 | C trigger significantly slower than PL/pgSQL? |