From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Bronnimann <meb(at)speakeasy(dot)net> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: function returning setof performance question |
Date: | 2003-07-30 03:51:04 |
Message-ID: | 3F2740A8.7020900@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-sql |
Mark Bronnimann wrote:
> I was hoping to eliminate the parse call on the view because I was doing
> the where clause on the view instead of putting the where in the view.
> In all, I was hoping to keep a single view called from multiple functions
> with different where clauses. Yep... I shoulda known better...
>
It sounds like you're using a sql function, not a plpgsql function
(although I don't think you said either way). If you write the function
in plpgsql it will get parsed and cached on the first call in a
particular backend session, which *might* give you improved performance
on subsequent calls, if there are any; are you using persistent connections?
Alternatively, it might work to use a prepared query.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2003-07-30 07:24:49 | Re: Why performance improvement on converting subselect to a function ? |
Previous Message | Mark Bronnimann | 2003-07-30 02:57:27 | Re: function returning setof performance question |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Anagha Joshi | 2003-07-30 07:52:03 | time precision. |
Previous Message | Mark Bronnimann | 2003-07-30 02:57:27 | Re: function returning setof performance question |