Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От James William Pye
Тема Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text
Дата
Msg-id 200D6373-315D-440A-B28D-739D5FC5ABC6@jwp.name
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text  (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Jan 27, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> Implementing true value_per_call is still something on my TODO list, but
> obviously has not risen to a very high priority for me as it has now
> been an embarrassing long time since it was put there. But that said,
> materialize mode has proven extremely good at covering the most common
> use cases with acceptable performance.

Hrm. I think this has been noted before, but one of the problems with VPC is that there can be a fairly significant
amountof overhead involved with context setup and teardown--especially with PLs. If you're streaming millions of rows,
it'sno longer a small matter. 

I would think some extension to Tuplestore would be preferable. Where chunks of rows are placed into the Tuplestore on
demandin order to minimize context setup/teardown overhead. That is, if the Tuplestore is empty and the user needs more
rows,invoke the procedure again with the expectation that it will dump another chunk of rows into the container. Not a
formalspecification by any means, but I'm curious if anyone has considered that direction. 

Or along the same lines, how about a valueS-per-call mode? =)

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: CommitFest status summary 2010-01-27
Следующее
От: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text