Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E16634427
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  9 Mar 2009 16:52:14 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 88671-06-3
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  9 Mar 2009 16:52:09 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8635634865
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon,  9 Mar 2009 16:52:01 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n29JpxGO014318;
	Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:51:59 -0400 (EDT)
To: Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query much slower when run from postgres function 
In-reply-to: <49B56A3D.8000100@megafon.hr> 
References: <49B51B60.6030600@megafon.hr> <27649.1236616294@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<49B56A3D.8000100@megafon.hr>
Comments: In-reply-to Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>
	message dated "Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:13:01 +0100"
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:51:58 -0400
Message-ID: <14317.1236628318@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200903/69
X-Sequence-Number: 32991

Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr> writes:
> Is this difference normal?

It's hard to tell, because you aren't comparing apples to apples.
Try a prepared statement, like

prepare foo(int) as
SELECT
	COUNT(*)::int4
FROM
	_v1
WHERE
	service_id = $1
;

execute foo(504);

which should produce results similar to the function.  You could
then use "explain analyze execute" to probe further into what's
happening.

			regards, tom lane