Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Riaan Stander
Subject Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy
Date
Msg-id 0e47ae52-e80a-fd8e-021c-7c8cc0495b26@exa.co.za
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-performance

Riaan Stander <rstander@exa.co.za> writes:
I've come up with generating functions on the go, but I'm concerned about 
the performance impact of this. I first wanted to use an anonoumys code 
block, but then I cannot do parameter binding from npgsql.
...
Is there a better way I'm missing and is "temp" function creation in 
Postgres a big performance concern, especially if a server is under load?
The function itself is only one pg_proc row, but if you're expecting
to do this thousands of times a minute you might have to adjust autovacuum
settings to avoid bad bloat in pg_proc.

If you're intending that these functions be use-once, it's fairly unclear
to me why you bother, as opposed to just issuing the underlying SQL
statements.
		regards, tom lane

The intended use is use-once. The reason is that the statements might differ per call, especially when we start doing updates. The ideal would be to just issue the sql statements, but I was trying to cut down on network calls. To batch them together and get output from one query as input for the others (declare variables), I have to wrap them in a function in Postgres. Or am I missing something? In SQL Server TSQL I could declare variables in any statement as required.


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Bulk persistence strategy