From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: IMMUTABLE? |
Date: | 2006-05-16 04:31:41 |
Message-ID: | 5894.1147753901@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> But seriously, the documentation says (as if I need to tell you, but
> I was reading it again to make sure that I'm not insane):
>> IMMUTABLE indicates that the function always returns the same
>> result when given the same argument values; that is, it does not do
>> database lookups or otherwise use information not directly present
>> in its argument list. If this option is given, any call of the
>> function with all-constant arguments can be immediately replaced
>> with the function value.
Sure. As I read it, that's talking about a static transformation:
planner sees 2 + 2 (or if you prefer, int4pl(2,2)), planner runs the
function and replaces the expression with 4. Nothing there about
memoization.
It's true that the system *could* memoize (or in our more usual
parlance, cache function values) given the assumptions embodied in
IMMUTABLE. But we don't, and I don't see any statement in the docs
that promises that we do. For 99% of the functions that the planner
deals with, memoization would be seriously counterproductive because
the function evaluation cost is comparable to if not less than the
lookup cost in a memo table. (int4pl is a good case in point.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Arjen van der Meijden | 2006-05-16 09:33:32 | Pgsql (and mysql) benchmark on T2000/Solaris and some profiling |
Previous Message | David Wheeler | 2006-05-16 04:22:03 | Re: IMMUTABLE? |