Re: Function execution costs 'n all that - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: Function execution costs 'n all that
Date
Msg-id 1168887288.6174.109.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Function execution costs 'n all that  (Richard Troy <rtroy@ScienceTools.com>)
Responses Re: Function execution costs 'n all that  (Richard Troy <rtroy@ScienceTools.com>)
Re: Function execution costs 'n all that  (Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>)
Re: Function execution costs 'n all that  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 10:51 -0800, Richard Troy wrote:
> I therefore propose that the engine evaluate -
> benchmark, if you will - all functions as they are ingested, or
> vacuum-like at some later date (when valid data for testing may exist),
> and assign a cost relative to what it already knows - the built-ins, for
> example.

That seems pretty unworkable. It is unsafe, for one: evaluating a
function may have side effects (inside or outside the database), so the
DBMS cannot just invoke user-defined functions at whim. Also, the
relationship between a function's arguments and its performance will
often be highly complex -- it would be very difficult, not too mention
computationally infeasible, to reconstruct that relationship
automatically, especially without any real knowledge about the
function's behavior.

-Neil




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Checkpoint request failed on version 8.2.1.
Next
From: Richard Troy
Date:
Subject: Re: Function execution costs 'n all that