Re: Question about simple function folding optimization

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question about simple function folding optimization
Date: 2003-04-09 15:58:47
Message-ID: 3E944337.2010601@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm. That's an unexpected downside of the recent change to inline
> simple SQL functions :-(. The inlined expression no longer looks
> like a match to the index.
>
> The simplest answer is probably to convert the function to plpgsql,
> which would probably give better performance for index access anyway.
> But I wonder whether any better answer is possible. I don't want to
> give up on the inlining optimization --- anyone see another fix?
>

Would changing the function from immutable to stable work (similar to
the other day)?

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-04-09 16:00:11 Re: Question about simple function folding optimization
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-04-09 15:54:23 Re: Question about simple function folding optimization