From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Richard Troy <rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com>, 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: | 2007-01-18 00:37:53 |
Message-ID: | 1169080673.19505.2.camel@dogma.v10.wvs |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 13:54 -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> 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
Would any form of cost estimate have meaning if the function has side
effects? If it's a volatile function, doesn't that mean that the planner
can't avoid or favor executing it?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-18 00:46:04 | Re: Design notes for EquivalenceClasses |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2007-01-18 00:13:20 | Re: Design notes for EquivalenceClasses |