Message-ID: <49B56D4D.9090605@megafon.hr>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:26:05 +0100
From: Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
CC: pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function
References: <49B51B60.6030600@megafon.hr> <27649.1236616294@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<87fxhmmygj.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan>
In-Reply-To: <87fxhmmygj.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>>> Now I'm confused, why is 'sql' function much slower than 'direct' SELECT?
>> Usually the reason for this is that the planner chooses a different plan
>> when it has knowledge of the particular value you are searching for than
>> when it does not.
> 
> Yes, and since Mario is coming from JDBC, I'll share my part on
> this: I also noticed some very wrong plans in JDBC because of the
> "optimization" in prepared statements consisting of planning once
> for all runs, e.g. without any parameter values to help planning.
> 

For what is worth:

When I call postgres function via JDBC, I have almost the same execution
time as when calling function from psql.

When I call SELECT COUNT(*)... WHERE... query from JDBC, I again have
almost the same execution time as when executing query from psql.

Postgres function takes around 200ms, and SELECT query takes around 2-4ms.

	Mike