| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Eric B(dot) Ridge" <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgresql <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Query plans for plpgsql triggers |
| Date: | 2006-03-25 04:39:40 |
| Message-ID: | 14507.1143261580@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Eric B. Ridge" <ebr(at)tcdi(dot)com> writes:
> When is the UPDATE statement inside foo() planned? When the trigger
> is first created, or when it's first used per backend, or every time
> it's used per backend?
First use per backend, ignoring corner cases such as replacing the
function definition.
> I dunno what plan is being generated, but it's gotta be using a
> sequential scan.
The issue is probably that the planner is seeing a parameterized
query. Try this:
prepare foo(int8) as update some_other_table SET field = 'value' WHERE id = $1;
explain execute foo(42);
and see what plan you get. If the id field has sufficiently
discouraging statistics then the planner may think that a seqscan
is the safest plan. In a "normal" query where you're comparing id
to a constant, the planner can see whether the constant matches any
of the most common values for the column --- if it doesn't then an
indexscan is a good plan.
If you really want a replan every time, you can get it by using
EXECUTE.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eric B. Ridge | 2006-03-25 05:10:40 | Re: Query plans for plpgsql triggers |
| Previous Message | Eric B. Ridge | 2006-03-25 04:25:04 | Query plans for plpgsql triggers |