Re: pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones?
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRCceGDEp1sxvMoe0oaio6P=O2nJPfs9MWgu4-+zCTdrVg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones? ("Carlo Stonebanks" <stonec.register@sympatico.ca>) |
Ответы |
Re: pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones?
Re: pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones? |
Список | pgsql-performance |
2012/1/27 Carlo Stonebanks <stonec.register@sympatico.ca>: > Yes, I did test it - i.e. I ran the functions on their own as I had always > noticed a minor difference between EXPLAIN ANALYZE results and direct query > calls. > > Interesting, so sql functions DON'T cache plans? Will plan-caching be of any > benefit to SQL that makes no reference to any tables? The SQL is emulating > the straight non-set-oriented procedural logic of the original plpgsql. > It is not necessary usually - simple SQL functions are merged to outer query - there are e few cases where this optimization cannot be processed and then there are performance lost. For example this optimization is not possible (sometimes) when some parameter is volatile Regards Pavel Stehule
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: