| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Function execution costs 'n all that |
| Date: | 2007-01-21 01:39:13 |
| Message-ID: | 17062.1169343553@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 15:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> maybe we should just do the constant for starters and see how many
>> people really want to write C-code estimators ...
> +1
It seemed like that was the list's consensus, so I'll go off and do the
simple-constant case. We can always extend it later.
For reference, the plan is to add these options to CREATE/ALTER
FUNCTION:
COST float-constant (defaults to 1)
ROWS float-constant (defaults to 1000)
feeding into two float4 columns added to pg_proc. ROWS is only
allowed/meaningful for set-returning functions. COST is implicitly
scaled by cpu_operator_cost.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-21 01:56:49 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #2907: pg_get_serial_sequence quoting |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-20 22:11:25 | Re: Concurrent connections in psql |