From: | Andrzej Barszcz <abusinf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: function calls optimization |
Date: | 2019-11-21 08:37:46 |
Message-ID: | CAOUVqAwV2iQUhNq-GLpVFWTp0dVAWCaFygovp4yqdxjnd=C-tQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I think your first thought was good.
How high ? I think it's a matter of convention, certainly more than default
100.
czw., 21 lis 2019 o 02:05 Andy Fan <zhihui(dot)fan1213(at)gmail(dot)com> napisał(a):
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Possibly this could be finessed by only trying to find duplicates of
>> functions that have high cost estimates. Not sure how high is high
>> enough.
>
>
> can we just add a flag on pg_proc to show if the cost is high or not, if
> user are not happy with that, they can change it by updating the value?
> based on that most of the function call cost are low, this way may be
> helpful for the searching of duplicate expressions.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-11-21 08:40:59 | Re: Ordering of header file inclusion |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-11-21 08:21:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |