Re: function calls optimization

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.
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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