| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | S G <sgennaria2(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SQL code runs slower as a stored function |
| Date: | 2010-05-13 19:19:31 |
| Message-ID: | 18588.1273778371@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * S G (sgennaria2(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> I guess to really get down to the issue, I'm curious if what I'm doing is
>> considered 'standard procedure' to others-- i.e. using funny workarounds
>> like building the query in a text var and executing it with plpgsql's RETURN
>> QUERY EXECUTE command.
> It's certainly not unusual when it's necessary. We do try to minimize
> the times it's necessary by making the planner as smart as possible.
Yeah. This is a known sore spot that I hope to do something about in
the 9.1 development cycle.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vick Khera | 2010-05-13 19:37:12 | Re: pg_dumpall for Postgres Database Daily Backup |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-13 19:08:58 | Re: Persistence problem |