Hello 2011/1/25 Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com>: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 11:32:02AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> because I am not sure so any complex solution can be done to deadline >> for 9.1, I created a patch that is based on Tom ideas - just >> explicitly detoast function parameters. > > I can confirm that, for your original test case, this yields performance > comparable to that of your original patch.
I know it :(. I am thinking, so detoasting on usage is better, but I am don't know more about Tom or Rober's plans. > > This patch hooks into plpgsql_exec_function, detoasting only the function > arguments. Therefore, it doesn't help in a test case like the one I posted in > my original review. That test case initialized a variable using SELECT INTO, > then used the variable in a loop. Is there any benefit to doing this in > plpgsql_exec_function, versus exec_assign_value (Tom's suggestion), which > would > presumably help the other test case also? I can explicitly detosting on assign stmt too. It's 6 lines more. Regards Pavel > > As we've discussed, unlike the original patch, this yields similarly grand > performance regressions on functions that receive toasted arguments and never > use them. Who is prepared to speculate that this will help more people than > it > will hurt? This patch is easier on -hackers than the original, but it seems > much more likely to create measurable performance regressions in the field. > It's clear the committers prefer it this way, but I remain skeptical. > > nm > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
