| From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: cacheable stored functions? | 
| Date: | 2004-02-20 16:48:24 | 
| Message-ID: | 40363A58.5020609@potentialtech.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance | 
Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Friday 20 February 2004 15:35, Bill Moran wrote:
> 
>>I'm converting a SQL application to PostgreSQL.  The majority of the logic
>>in this application is in the stored functions in the database.
>>
>>Somewhere, I saw a reference to "WITH (iscachable)" for stored functions,
>>looking again, I'm unable to find any reference to this directive.  I have
>>a single function that is _obviously_ safe to cache using this, and it
>>generates no errors or problems that I can see.
>>
>>Now I'm looking at a lot of other functions that, if cached, would speed
>>up performance considerably.  Yet I'm reluctant to use this directive
>>since I can't find documentation on it anywhere.
> 
>>From memory, "iscachable" was replaced in version 7.3 by the three 
> finer-grained settings IMMUTABLE, STABLE, VOLATILE.
> 
> I'm guessing the old behaviour is still there for backwards compatibility, but 
> it's probably best to use the new versions.
Thanks to everyone who replied (with more or less the same answer ;)
This has explained away my confusion, and I now have a reference to read.
-- 
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sean Shanny | 2004-02-20 19:17:10 | General performance questions about postgres on Apple hardware... | 
| Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-02-20 16:01:28 | Re: cacheable stored functions? |