Re: [HACKERS] Faster methods for getting SPI results (460%improvement)

On 4/6/17 9:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/6/17 03:50, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> But otherwise, pending docs changes, I think it's ready for committer.
>
> My opinion is still that this is ultimately the wrong approach.  The
> right fix for performance issues in PL/Python is to change PL/Python not
> to materialize the list of tuples.  Now with this change we would be
> moving from two result materializations to one, but I think we are
> keeping the wrong one.

That's an option for future improvement, but I see no way to accomplish 
that without completely breaking plpy.

I think the best way to handle this would be to allow plpython functions 
to define their own callback function, which would be handed a python 
tuple that was translated from the SPI result tuple. How best to do that 
without breaking plpy will require some thought though.

In the meantime, I don't think a 27% performance gain is anything to 
sneeze at, and the SPI changes would be directly usable by pl/r and pl/tcl.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net