| From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Joe Love <joe(at)primoweb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Feature request: Optimizer improvement |
| Date: | 2013-11-01 22:43:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAOeZVicSnXyys5uZ62Q0HbDpHgZ1e=5GjZWO5PSkGkt+YW_+=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, November 1, 2013, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com');>>
> wrote:
>
> Joe Love <joe(at)primoweb(dot)com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
> 'joe(at)primoweb(dot)com');>> wrote:
>
> In postgres 9.2 I have a function that is relatively expensive.
>
>
> What did you specify in the COST clause on the CREATE FUNCTION
> statement?
>
>
> Should that really matter in this case? ISTM we should always handle LIMIT
> before moving on to the SELECT clause…?
>
+1
It's sounds straight logical
--
Regards,
Atri
*l'apprenant*
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-02 00:17:00 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #8573: int4range memory consumption |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-01 20:30:19 | Re: Handle LIMIT/OFFSET before select clause (was: Feature request: optimizer improvement) |