Re: Interesting case of IMMUTABLE significantly hurting performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Interesting case of IMMUTABLE significantly hurting performance
Date: 2013-08-14 04:17:40
Message-ID: 22812.1376453860@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I've run into an interesting Stack Overflow post where the user shows
> that marking a particular function as IMMUTABLE significantly hurts the
> performance of a query.

> http://stackoverflow.com/q/18220761/398670

> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
> to_datestamp_immutable(time_int double precision) RETURNS date AS $$
> SELECT date_trunc('day', to_timestamp($1))::date;
> $$ LANGUAGE SQL IMMUTABLE;

[ shrug... ] Using IMMUTABLE to lie about the mutability of a function
(in this case, date_trunc) is a bad idea. It's likely to lead to wrong
answers, never mind performance issues. In this particular case, I
imagine the performance problem comes from having suppressed the option
to inline the function body ... but you should be more worried about
whether you aren't getting flat-out bogus answers in other cases.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2013-08-14 04:44:22 Re: Interesting case of IMMUTABLE significantly hurting performance
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2013-08-14 03:57:00 Re: Interesting case of IMMUTABLE significantly hurting performance