| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2007-01-15 18:54:48 |
| Message-ID: | 1168887288.6174.109.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
DBMS cannot just invoke user-defined functions at whim. Also, the
relationship between a function's arguments and its performance will
often be highly complex -- it would be very difficult, not too mention
computationally infeasible, to reconstruct that relationship
automatically, especially without any real knowledge about the
function's behavior.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian Hurt | 2007-01-15 19:45:46 | Re: Function execution costs 'n all that |
| Previous Message | Richard Troy | 2007-01-15 18:51:46 | Re: Function execution costs 'n all that |