Re: query optimization with UDFs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: jungmin shin <jungmin(dot)shin(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: query optimization with UDFs
Date: 2006-10-10 23:06:57
Message-ID: 14167.1160521617@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> BTW, I think it would make sense to implement a limited subset of the
> xfunc ideas: add options to CREATE FUNCTION to allow cost information to
> be specified, and then take advantage of this information instead of
> using the existing constant kludges. This would be a tangible
> improvement, and would have minimal impact on the planner.

The trick is to figure out what a useful parameterized cost model would
look like. IIRC, the main reason the xfunc code rotted on the vine was
that its cost parameters didn't seem to be either easy to select or
powerful in predicting actual cost. We'd have to do better this time.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Broersma Jr 2006-10-11 00:31:08 restoring a file system backed-up data dir
Previous Message Marco Serantoni 2006-10-10 21:40:13 Database Auditing

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-10-10 23:15:09 Re: Index Tuning Features
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-10-10 23:06:39 Re: 8.2beta1 does not compile for me on Solaris 10