Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Function Scan costs

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Andy Halsall <halsall_andy(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: "postgresql (dot)org novice list" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Function Scan costs
Date: 2012-06-27 17:54:58
Message-ID: CA+U5nMK6HYz28WfN_Da7uokJ_Lmg46Ngtak63Ai-1W6F7ZAsTA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-novice
On 27 June 2012 16:56, Andy Halsall <halsall_andy(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:

> LOG:  duration: 0.497 ms  plan:
>         Query Text: select * from sp_select_by_node_rel($1,$2)
>         Function Scan on public.sp_select_by_node_rel  (cost=0.25..0.26
> rows=1 width=296) (actual time=0.482..0.483 rows=1 loo
> ps=1)
>           Output: tn_type, rel_type, tn_c_state, tn_sort, tn_d_state,
> tn_create_order, stn_guid, tsn_guid, tn_gen_perms, tn_au
> dit, rel_state, sp_perms, rel_control, prime_key, prime_key_len, sec_key,
> sec_key_len, u_prime_key, u_prime_key_len, u_sec_key
> , u_sec_key_len
>
>           Function Call: sp_select_by_node_rel(82677::bigint, 71346::bigint)
>           Buffers: shared hit=6

Seems OK to me.

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: Antonio Carlos Salzvedel Furtado JuniorDate: 2012-06-27 20:28:48
Subject: The use of cpu_index_tuple_cost by the query planner
Previous:From: Andy HalsallDate: 2012-06-27 15:56:01
Subject: Function Scan costs

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group