Re: plpgsql functions organisation - Mailing list pgsql-general
Further to the point of saying functions are ineffiencent, consider the fact that as of the current version of PostgreSQL, plpgsql
functions cannot be pre-optimized. So when they are referenced in a SQL statement, PostgreSQL (optimizer) has load theOn Sat, May 2, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> wrote:
Maybe that's a roundabout way of saying that if your functions areOn Sat, 2 May 2015 14:07:31 -0700
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 05/02/2015 10:12 AM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
> >
> >> AFAIK, you cannot "package" functions in PostgreSQL, but it is possible
> >> to
> >> call a function from within a function.
> >>
> >> That being said, I would seriously look at how and why you are writing
> >> your functions
> >> as functions that call other functions are not very efficient.
> >>
> >
> > I am not following. That is what packaging is about, separating out 'units
> > of work' so they can be combined as needed. Part of that is using existing
> > functions in new functions/classes. In fact in the Postgres source I see
> > this in many places. Now it is entirely possible I missed a memo, so I am
> > open to a more detailed explanation of the inefficiencies involved.
> >
>
> The Postgres source is written in C, not in plpgsql. C has a good
> optimizing compiler and plpgsql doesn't.
complex enough to require calling "sub-functions" they might be
justifying being writting in C?
--
Bill Moran
--
Melvin Davidson
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
pgsql-general by date: