Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126CA2E0051 for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 08:55:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 39197-07 for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 08:55:48 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from gatefox.foxi.nl (foxi.xs4all.nl [194.109.246.192]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC9762E0042 for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 08:55:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from techfox.foxi (techfox.foxi [192.168.0.79]) by gatefox.foxi.nl (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id m46Btrl3013298; Tue, 6 May 2008 13:55:53 +0200 From: Frank van Vugt Organization: Foxi Consultants in Technology BV To: PFC , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: plan difference between set-returning function with ROWS within IN() and a plain join Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 13:55:52 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <200805061021.43448.ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl> In-Reply-To: X-message-flag: Fed up with inflexible software? Worried about this kind of behaviour? Have us explain Linux! Greetings from Foxi C.i.T. BV MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805061355.52654.ftm.van.vugt@foxi.nl> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.088 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.088 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200805/75 X-Sequence-Number: 30043 > > I'm noticing a difference in planning between a join and an in() clause, > > before trying to create an independent test-case, I'd like to know if > > there's > > an obvious reason why this would be happening: > > Is the function STABLE ? Yep. For the record, even changing it to immutable doesn't make a difference in performance here. -- Best, Frank.