Re: Function execution costs 'n all that

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Function execution costs 'n all that
Date: 2007-01-18 00:37:53
Message-ID: 1169080673.19505.2.camel@dogma.v10.wvs
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 13:54 -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 10:51 -0800, Richard Troy wrote:
> > I therefore propose that the engine evaluate -
> > benchmark, if you will - all functions as they are ingested, or
> > vacuum-like at some later date (when valid data for testing may exist),
> > and assign a cost relative to what it already knows - the built-ins, for
> > example.
>
> That seems pretty unworkable. It is unsafe, for one: evaluating a
> function may have side effects (inside or outside the database), so the

Would any form of cost estimate have meaning if the function has side
effects? If it's a volatile function, doesn't that mean that the planner
can't avoid or favor executing it?

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-01-18 00:46:04 Re: Design notes for EquivalenceClasses
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2007-01-18 00:13:20 Re: Design notes for EquivalenceClasses