Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AA29FA418; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:17:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 45273-09; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:17:01 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03809FB1E6; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:17:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6D04A56446; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:16:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:16:55 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:16:54 -0500 From: "Jim C. Nasby" To: jungmin shin Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UDF and cache Message-ID: <20061018211654.GD85041@nasby.net> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p10 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Hashcash: 1:20:061018:jungmin.shin@gmail.com::5MkS93LxJEK7cbFv:000000000000000 00000000000000000000000034pw X-Hashcash: 1:20:061018:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org::UbgPBfko4j4SiBRm:000000000 0000000000000000000000008PAs X-Hashcash: 1:20:061018:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::Jzl8LRtmy1t6GJkg:00000 0000000000000000000000000dUw X-Hashcash: 1:20:061018:pgsql-general@postgresql.org::Ob7FDII1qz5bGWBT:000000000 0000000000000000000000004T1I X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.046 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/943 X-Sequence-Number: 102469 On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 05:15:13PM -0400, jungmin shin wrote: > Hello all, > > I read a paper, which is Query optimization in the presence of Foreign > Functions. > And the paper , there is a paragraph like below. > > In order to reduce the number of invocations, caching the results of > invocation was suggested in Postgres. > > I'd like to know in detail about how postgres is maintaing the cache of > UDFs. It's not. See list archives for past discussions. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)