Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
Subject Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text
Date
Msg-id 20100127162824.62d43b39@dawn.webthatworks.it
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:10:01 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:

> There are quite a few SRF functions in the code. Look for example
> in contrib/hstore/hstore_op.c for some fairly simple examples.
> SRFs are quite capable of returning huge resultsets, not just
> small ones. Example code for matrerialize mode can be found in the
> PLs among other places (e.g. plperl_return_next() )

I'm more interested in understanding when I should use materialized
mode.
eg. I should be more concerned about memory or cpu cycles and what
should be taken as a reference to consider memory needs "large"?
If for example I was going to split a large TEXT into a set of
record (let's say I'm processing csv that has been loaded into a
text field)... I'd consider the CPU use "light" but the memory needs
"large". Would be this task suited for the materialized mode?

Is there a rule of thumb to chose between one mode or the other?

thanks

-- 
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: C function accepting/returning cstring vs. text