| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to>, Keith Worthington <KeithW(at)NarrowPathInc(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: View vs function |
| Date: | 2005-03-21 06:40:42 |
| Message-ID: | 11188.1111387242@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> Functions are just black boxes to the planner.
> ... unless the function is a SQL function that is trivial enough for the
> planner to inline it into the plan of the invoking query. Currently, we
> won't inline set-returning SQL functions that are used in the query's
> rangetable, though. This would be worth doing, I think -- I'm not sure
> how much work it would be, though.
Yeah, I've been thinking the same. It seems like it shouldn't be unduly
difficult --- not harder than inlining scalar-valued SQL functions, just
different validity conditions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2005-03-21 09:55:00 | Re: Hardware impact on performances |
| Previous Message | Stacy White | 2005-03-21 05:40:10 | Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning? |