| From: | Atul Kumar <akumar14871(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: optimization issue |
| Date: | 2021-07-08 18:55:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+ONtZ7U2Fkd_u1E79f2nFr2S+iqyyP_bx-trB0R_1NpvTveGA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Lewis,
I am new to postgres.
Could you tell me how should I put the result on an analyzed temp table at
least ?
Please suggest.
Regards.
On Thursday, July 8, 2021, Michael Lewis <mlewis(at)entrata(dot)com> wrote:
> ((current_setting('env.groupid'::text))::integer)::numeric
>
> If you pass this value in directly as part of the query string, how does
> it perform? It seems like calling the function to get this value may be
> creating a planning problem with the value unknown at plan time. If you
> were able to put the result on an analyzed temp table at least, I'd expect
> that the planner would have enough info to make good decisions.
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emiliano Saenz | 2021-07-08 19:09:02 | Re: The Curious Case of the Table-Locking UPDATE Query |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2021-07-08 17:42:24 | Re: The Curious Case of the Table-Locking UPDATE Query |