| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Islam Hegazy <islheg(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: modifying the tbale function |
| Date: | 2007-03-19 16:48:33 |
| Message-ID: | 13674.1174322913@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Richard Huxton wrote:
>> Is this not what we do with aggregate functions at present?
> Yes, more or less. That's what made me think of it.
> OTOH, before we rush out and do it someone needs to show that it's a net
> win.
Yeah, because this isn't doing anything to address the problem of
entry/exit overhead from calling a PL function many times. I kinda
dislike shoving the problem onto the heads of PL programmers anyway...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-03-19 16:49:53 | Re: Grouped Index Tuples / Clustered Indexes |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-03-19 16:36:28 | Re: modifying the tbale function |