X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C47D9D1C9DB
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  6 Feb 2004 17:24:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 93710-09
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri,  6 Feb 2004 13:24:43 -0400 (AST)
Received: from alvarezp.ods.org (unknown [200.77.201.28])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0045BD1CACB
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Fri,  6 Feb 2004 13:24:40 -0400 (AST)
Received: (from apache@localhost)
	by alvarezp.ods.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i16HOrR14772;
	Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:24:53 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: alvarezp.ods.org: apache set sender to
	alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org using -f
Received: from 192.168.0.64 (SquirrelMail authenticated user alvarezp)
	by alvarezp.ods.org with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3080.192.168.0.64.1076088292.squirrel@alvarezp.ods.org>
In-Reply-To: <4023567E.1020406@klaster.net>
References: <4207.192.168.0.64.1076051944.squirrel@alvarezp.ods.org>      
	<40234207.6040207@klaster.net>
	<4795.192.168.0.64.1076056992.squirrel@alvarezp.ods.org>
	<4023567E.1020406@klaster.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Seq scan on zero-parameters function
From: "Octavio Alvarez" <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org>
To: "Tomasz Myrta" <jasiek@klaster.net>
Cc: "Lista dyskusyjna pgsql-sql" <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Reply-To: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.0-1.7.x
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200402/68
X-Sequence-Number: 16759


Tomasz Myrta said:
> Dnia 2004-02-06 09:43, U¿ytkownik Octavio Alvarez napisa³:
>> Thanks for the hint.
>>
>> In fact, my current_period_id() is based on time, but it should be
>> constant along the query execution. I mean, I don't want some records
>> filtered with some values and other with other values... I'll have an
>> uncongruent recordset.
>
> Well - you didn't read the chapter I noticed you, did you?

Huummm.. No... :-$

But now I did. Although the chapter makes it look as "how will the
optimizer think the function behaves", not "how the function actually
behaves".

But thanks. It's a lot clearer now. I assume that if I want to make
"timeofday" have a stable-behavior, I must enclose it in a sub-query. Am I
right?

-- 
Octavio Alvarez.
E-mail: alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org.

Agradezco que sus correos sean enviados siempre a esta dirección.