From: Gavin M. Roy <gmr@myyearbook.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SQL Function Slowness, 8.3.0
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:44:40 -0400
Message-ID: <af1bce590804161144q1b78be6cy69c9a44cc4b9b7bf@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8328.1208358587@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <af1bce590804160806t58f7da1g50fc697dd9e6ab08@mail.gmail.com>
<8328.1208358587@sss.pgh.pa.us>
After detailed examination of pg_stat_user_indexes usage, it's clear that
the functions don't use the same indexes. I've casted everything to match
the indexes in the SQL function, to no success. Any suggestions on next
steps? Maybe for 8.4 we could find a way to explain analyze function
internals ;-)
Gavin
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@myyearbook.com> writes:
> > In 8.3.0, I'm seeing some oddities with SQL functions which I thought
> were
> > immune to the planner data restrictions of plpgsql functions and the
> sort.
>
> Without a specific example this discussion is pretty content-free, but
> in general SQL functions face the same hazards of bad parameterized
> plans as plpgsql functions do.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: gmr@myyearbook.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: SQL Function Slowness, 8.3.0
In-Reply-To: <af1bce590804161144q1b78be6cy69c9a44cc4b9b7bf@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox