Re: performance of functions - or rather lack of it

From: Peter Galbavy <peter(dot)galbavy(at)knowledge(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance of functions - or rather lack of it
Date: 2001-04-05 07:29:10
Message-ID: 20010405082905.C25909@office.knowledge.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:01:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Without knowing which PG version you're using, what plans you're
> getting, or even whether you've VACUUM ANALYZEd lately, it's difficult
> to say more than that.

I followed that up quickly - server 7.0.2, client 7.1RC1. VACUUMed
etc prior to the test. OTOH, since the tests were done multiple
times directly after the other, the underlying infrastructure should
be the same.

BTW I deleted your paragraph above, but I agree about the parameters
and the constant stuff. I will retry with a fixed-value function
just for the completeness of it.

> Unless your TCP connection is running across tin cans and string,
> the transfer time for the query text is negligible ...

Fair point. I am not really in the 100Mb networking work in my heart
... :-)

--
Peter Galbavy
Knowledge Matters Ltd
http://www.knowledge.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2001-04-05 08:45:59 Re: Index on View ?
Previous Message Keith Gray 2001-04-05 04:18:55 Index on View ?