Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update
Date
Msg-id 11514.1146018981@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update  (David Wheeler <david@kineticode.com>)
Responses Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update
Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update
List pgsql-performance
David Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> writes:
> Just on a lark, I tried to get this to work:

> try=# explain analyze EXECUTE foo(1, ARRAY
> [600001,600002,600003,600004,600005,600006,600007]);
>                                        QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> Result  (cost=0.00..0.01 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=26.241..26.251
> rows=1 loops=1)
> Total runtime: 27.512 ms
> (2 rows)

> That's not much use.

It looks like you had something trivial as the definition of foo().
Try one of the actual queries from the plpgsql function.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: David Wheeler
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL Loop Vs. Batch Update
Next
From: Ron Peacetree
Date:
Subject: Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs