# Performance of painless scripts: inline vs stored

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-of-painless-scripts-inline-vs-stored/241212>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Tags:** painless\
**Created:** [July 15, 2020, 12:38am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-of-painless-scripts-inline-vs-stored/241212 "2020-07-15T00:38:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dennis\_Andersen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dennis\_Andersen](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/Dennis_Andersen)\
**Post date:** [July 15, 2020, 12:38am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-of-painless-scripts-inline-vs-stored/241212/1 "2020-07-15T00:38:44Z")

</div>

Is it more efficient to create stored painless scripts than put them inline? Specifically I am interested in this for aggregations.

Thanks,  
Dennis

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nik9000](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/nik9000/32/44947_2.png) [@nik9000](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/nik9000)\
**Post date:** [July 15, 2020, 12:53am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-of-painless-scripts-inline-vs-stored/241212/2 "2020-07-15T00:53:08Z")

</div>

There shouldn't be a difference in performance. Just try and use the same script over and over again so it can be cached.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\
**Post date:** [August 12, 2020, 12:53am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/performance-of-painless-scripts-inline-vs-stored/241212/3 "2020-08-12T00:53:10Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.