Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA552E008E
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:02:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 68176-06 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:02:19 -0400 (AST)
Received: from host.newx.com.br (host.newx.com.br [216.40.252.42])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2742E0079
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:02:24 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [143.54.12.45]
	by host.newx.com.br with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68)
	(envelope-from <euler@timbira.com>)
	id 1JJr2X-0001qW-1e; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:02:17 -0200
Message-ID: <479F3137.2070708@timbira.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:59:19 -0200
From: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071121)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mlunnon@rwa-net.co.uk
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: Performance problems inside a stored procedure.
References: <479DC452.8010400@rwa-net.co.uk> <479DC558.30409@enterprisedb.com>
	<479DC630.9010707@rwa-net.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <479DC630.9010707@rwa-net.co.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
	please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.newx.com.br
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - postgresql.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - timbira.com
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200801/284
X-Sequence-Number: 28523

Matthew Lunnon wrote:

> Ahh, sorry, I have been too aggressive with my cutting, I am running 
> 8.2.6 and the function is below.
> 
<snip>

> $BODY$
>  LANGUAGE 'sql' VOLATILE;
                  ^^^^^^^^^^
I suspect that it's because you're using VOLATILE (so no good 
optimizations is done); did you try STABLE? Could you show us the 
EXPLAIN ANALYZE of query and function?


-- 
   Euler Taveira de Oliveira
   http://www.timbira.com/