If a C function was a call to multiple (unprepared) SQL statements, =
could PL/PGSQL's prepare-once plan caching have an advantage?
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org =
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
Sent: February 5, 2013 12:06 AM
To: Merlin Moncure
Cc: Carlo Stonebanks; kescobar@estudiantes.uci.cu; =
pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] What language is faster, C or PL/PgSQL?
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 08:33:02AM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Carlo Stonebanks=20
> <stonec.register@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Here is an advantage Plpgsql has:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/plpgsql-expressions.html
> >
> > I guess you can offset this by creating your own prepared statements =
in C.
> > Otherwise, I can t think of how C could be slower. I would choose C=20
> > for functions that don t have SQL statements in them e.g. math and =
> > string processing.
>=20
> For cases involving data processing (SPI calls), C can be slower=20
> because pl/pgsql has a lot of optimizations in it that can be very=20
> easy to miss. I don't suggest writing backend C functions at all=20
> unless you are trying to interface with a C library to access=20
> functionality currently not exposed in SQL.
How is PL/pgSQL faster than C? I thought we had optimized PL/pgSQL to =
save parsed functions, but I don't see how that would help with queries, =
which use SPI. Am I missing something?
--=20
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To =
make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general