Re: UDF in C slow - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Inanc Seylan
Subject Re: UDF in C slow
Date
Msg-id 4FAD37AA.9080603@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: UDF in C slow  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
I'm quite new to Postgres so I don't know how to read the execution
plans. However it is obvious that the plans for the query with and
without the function are different. I added some indices to the table
roleassertions and it seems to solve this big difference in the
execution times of both queries. So I guess it was not the function that
was the problem in the end. Thanks a lot!

Inanc

On 5/11/12 5:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Inanc Seylan<inanc.seylan@gmail.com>  writes:
>> It is IMMUTABLE. I attach the output of EXPLAIN both with and without
>> the simple function (returning true only) in the query.
>
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE would have been far more helpful.  However, the thing
> that jumps out at me here is all the seqscans on table "symbols".
> Do you not have an index on symbols.id?  If you do, perhaps there is
> a datatype-mismatch problem preventing it from being used.
>
>             regards, tom lane


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: UDF in C slow
Next
From: Raymond O'Donnell
Date:
Subject: Re: backup script