<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>imitatio creatio &#187; performance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://filip.rembialkowski.net/tag/performance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://filip.rembialkowski.net</link>
	<description>co we łbie piszczy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:11:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>PL/Perl regex vs builtin regex_replace in postgres</title>
		<link>http://filip.rembialkowski.net/plperl-regex-vs-builtin-regex_replace-in-postgres/</link>
		<comments>http://filip.rembialkowski.net/plperl-regex-vs-builtin-regex_replace-in-postgres/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:19:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>filip</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[all]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[databases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[perl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[postgres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regex]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://filip.rembialkowski.net/?p=382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maybe you (like me) wondered which one is faster... to use builtin regexp_replace function or to use Perl's regex engine via PL/Perl.
Here you are - this is a test I made (PostgreSQL 8.3.7, Perl 5.8.8, on CentOS 5,3)
First we have a plperl function:

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION test_perl( TEXT ) RETURNS TEXT AS
$code$
my $str = shift;
$str [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://filip.rembialkowski.net/plperl-regex-vs-builtin-regex_replace-in-postgres/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Postgres partitioning performance &#8211; rules vs triggers</title>
		<link>http://filip.rembialkowski.net/postgres-partitioning-performance-rules-vs-triggers/</link>
		<comments>http://filip.rembialkowski.net/postgres-partitioning-performance-rules-vs-triggers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>filip</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[all]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[databases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[partitioning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[postgres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[programming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[triggers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://filip.rembialkowski.net/?p=71</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rafal Pietrak asked a question about postgres performance in partitioning scenarios. 
The problem is, in classical partitioning approach you decide into which partition put the data basing only on the inserted data itself.
But we consider also situation when you want to make this decision basing on current database content.
For example we have some "driving" or [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://filip.rembialkowski.net/postgres-partitioning-performance-rules-vs-triggers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
