Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDBqo-0000nA-Fo for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:26:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDBqn-0006sv-MY for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:26:53 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDBme-0002LI-43 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:22:36 +0000 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDBmZ-0007mP-Ec for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 13:22:34 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDBmX-0005iE-Oz for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:22:30 +0200 Received: from 185.40.248.10 ([185.40.248.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:22:29 +0200 Received: from spam_eater by 185.40.248.10 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:22:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org From: Thomas Kellerer Subject: Re: Hmmm... why does CPU-intensive pl/pgsql code parallelise so badly when queries parallelise fine? Anyone else seen this? Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 15:22:10 +0200 Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <6E55113B-FA05-433C-9B21-623F798EE935@skogoglandskap.no> <559CB5BF.2080509@commandprompt.com> <20150708202733.GS10242@alap3.anarazel.de> <20150708224518.GT10242@alap3.anarazel.de> <15702.1436413118@sss.pgh.pa.us> <14796976-FF86-4A4D-97EE-259FCC9D01CF@skogoglandskap.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 185.40.248.10 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 In-Reply-To: <14796976-FF86-4A4D-97EE-259FCC9D01CF@skogoglandskap.no> X-Pg-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org Graeme B. Bell schrieb am 09.07.2015 um 11:44: > I don't recall seeing a clear statement telling me I should mark pl/pgsql > functions nonvolatile wherever possible or throw all performance and > scalability out the window. From: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/xfunc-volatility.html "For best optimization results, you should label your functions with the strictest volatility category that is valid for them." -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance