From: | "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <postgresql(at)ultimeth(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FUNCTIONs and CASTs |
Date: | 2008-02-15 23:03:02 |
Message-ID: | 47B61A26.4060806@ultimeth.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On 2008-02-15 14:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <postgresql(at)ultimeth(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Again, you are not understanding my point. My point was that specifying
>> tablename.columnname%TYPE notation doesn't help with the performance
>> problem; I have to explicitly cast the parameter in the body of the
>> function.
>>
>
> The reason for the lack of communication is that no one else believes
> that premise. Casting a value to the same type it already has is
> demonstrably a no-op.
>
Casing a TEXT item to a CHAR( 9 ) item isn't a no-op. I've seen this
before in "EXPLAIN ..." output, where a search on an indexed column will
be sequential because the planner treats the search value as TEXT rather
than CHAR( 9 ).
Are you saying that no one believes there is a performance difference?
Amazing ...
Tom, I've privately eMailed you access instructions to one of my DB
servers, so you can see for yourself.
--
Mail to my list address MUST be sent via the mailing list.
All other mail to my list address will bounce.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dean Gibson (DB Administrator) | 2008-02-16 00:45:58 | Re: FUNCTIONs and CASTs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-15 22:32:25 | Re: FUNCTIONs and CASTs |