Re: IMMUTABLE?

From: David Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
To: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chris(dot)kings-lynne(at)calorieking(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: IMMUTABLE?
Date: 2006-05-17 02:08:51
Message-ID: C8754CEB-0077-4B78-8355-25BFA90F19A2@kineticode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On May 16, 2006, at 18:29, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

>> Yes, but there are definitely programming cases where memoization/
>> caching definitely helps. And it's easy to tell for a given
>> function whether or not it really helps by simply trying it with
>> CACHED and without.
>> Would this be a simple thing to implement?
>
> It's called a "table" :)

http://www.justatheory.com/computers/databases/postgresql/
higher_order_plpgsql.html

Yes, I know. :-P But it'd be easier to have a CACHED keyword, of course.

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig A. James 2006-05-17 02:20:12 Re: Speed Up Offset and Limit Clause
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2006-05-17 01:29:13 Re: IMMUTABLE?