> I like to write PERFORMs that return a constant when
> selecting from a table. It emphasizes that the
> selection is being done for its side effects.
Well, there's always the destruction test: run each version of the function
10,000 times and see if there's an execution time difference.
> (Programs should be written for people to read
> and only incidentally for computers to execute.
> Programs that people can't read quickly
> become useless whereas programs that can't run
> quickly can be fixed. Computers are easy.
> People are difficult.)
That's a nice sentiment, but I don't see how it applies. For example, if I
SELECT id INTO v_check
FROM some_table ORDER BY id LIMIT 1;
IF id > 0 THEN ....
... that says pretty clearly to code maintainers that I'm only interested in
finding out whether there's any rows in the table, while making sure I use
the index on ID. If I want to make it more clear, I do:
-- check whether the table is populated
Not that there's anything wrong with your IF FOUND approach, but let's not mix
up optimizations and making your code pretty ... especially for a SQL
Aglio Database Solutions
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2005-10-24 04:40:10|
|Subject: Re: Using LIMIT 1 in plpgsql PERFORM statements|
|Previous:||From: Robert Edmonds||Date: 2005-10-24 03:58:09|
|Subject: performance of implicit join vs. explicit conditions on inet queries?|