[GENERAL] Re: Performance: sql functions v. plpgsql v. plperl

2001-04-26 Thread Karel Zak
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:03:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Joel Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > couldn't the parse tree be cached from this for each backend? > > Yes, if someone wanted to work on it ... It needs global query plan cache and integrate it to SQL function handler. The usabl

[GENERAL] Re: Performance: sql functions v. plpgsql v. plperl

2001-04-25 Thread Tom Lane
Joel Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > couldn't the parse tree be cached from this for each backend? Yes, if someone wanted to work on it ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe co

[GENERAL] Re: Performance: sql functions v. plpgsql v. plperl

2001-04-25 Thread Joel Burton
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Tom Lane wrote: > Joel Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Last night, I was doing some amateurish benchmarking and found that, > > contrary to my (admittedly uninformed) expectation, sql functions seem > > *slower* than plsql functions. > > IIRC, sql functions are re-par