Hi all. I see an entire database, with all the stored procedures writen in plpgsql. Off course, many (if not all) of that SP are simple inserts, updates, selects and so on. So, i want to test and show the differences between doing the same function in pgpgsql vs. plain sql. Im getting statistics (via collectd if that matters) and doing a modified version of the pgbench tests, just using pl (and sql) functions instead of the plain query: \setrandom delta -5000 5000 BEGIN; SELECT pgbench_accounts_upd_pl(:delta, :aid); SELECT get_pgbench_accounts_pl(:aid); SELECT pgbench_tellers_upd_pl(:delta, :tid); SELECT pgbench_branches_upd_pl(:delta, :bid); select pgbench_history_ins_pl(:tid, :bid, :aid, :delta); END; At first, pgbench is showing a difference between the "pl" and de "sql" versions: (pl.scripts own the "PL" version, sql.script owns the "SQL" version of the test) (This is a tiny netbook, with a dual core procesor) gherzig@via:~> pgbench -c 2 -C -T 300 -f pl.script -U postgres test duration: 300 s number of transactions actually processed: 13524 tps = 45.074960 (including connections establishing) tps = 75.260741 (excluding connections establishing) gherzig@via:~> pgbench -c 2 -C -T 300 -f sql.script -U postgres test starting vacuum...end. duration: 300 s number of transactions actually processed: 15125 tps = 50.412852 (including connections establishing) tps = 92.058245 (excluding connections establishing) So yeah, it looks like the "SQL" version is able to do a 10% more transactions. However, i was hoping to see anothers "efects" of using sql (perhaps less load avg in the SQL version), at the OS level. So, finnaly, the actual question: ¿Wich signals should i monitor, in order to show that PGPLSQL uses more resources than SQL? Thanks! Gerardo -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
