| From: | Peter Galbavy <peter(dot)galbavy(at)knowledge(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: performance of functions - or rather lack of it |
| Date: | 2001-04-05 07:29:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20010405082905.C25909@office.knowledge.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 01:01:15PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Without knowing which PG version you're using, what plans you're
> getting, or even whether you've VACUUM ANALYZEd lately, it's difficult
> to say more than that.
I followed that up quickly - server 7.0.2, client 7.1RC1. VACUUMed
etc prior to the test. OTOH, since the tests were done multiple
times directly after the other, the underlying infrastructure should
be the same.
BTW I deleted your paragraph above, but I agree about the parameters
and the constant stuff. I will retry with a fixed-value function
just for the completeness of it.
> Unless your TCP connection is running across tin cans and string,
> the transfer time for the query text is negligible ...
Fair point. I am not really in the 100Mb networking work in my heart
... :-)
--
Peter Galbavy
Knowledge Matters Ltd
http://www.knowledge.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2001-04-05 08:45:59 | Re: Index on View ? |
| Previous Message | Keith Gray | 2001-04-05 04:18:55 | Index on View ? |