Re: IMMUTABLE? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: IMMUTABLE?
Date
Msg-id 5894.1147753901@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: IMMUTABLE?  (David Wheeler <david@kineticode.com>)
Responses Re: IMMUTABLE?  (Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de>)
Re: IMMUTABLE?  (David Wheeler <david@kineticode.com>)
List pgsql-performance
David Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> writes:
> But seriously, the documentation says (as if I need to tell you, but
> I was reading it again to make sure that I'm not insane):

>> IMMUTABLE indicates that the function always returns the same
>> result when given the same argument values; that is, it does not do
>> database lookups or otherwise use information not directly present
>> in its argument list. If this option is given, any call of the
>> function with all-constant arguments can be immediately replaced
>> with the function value.

Sure.  As I read it, that's talking about a static transformation:
planner sees 2 + 2 (or if you prefer, int4pl(2,2)), planner runs the
function and replaces the expression with 4.  Nothing there about
memoization.

It's true that the system *could* memoize (or in our more usual
parlance, cache function values) given the assumptions embodied in
IMMUTABLE.  But we don't, and I don't see any statement in the docs
that promises that we do.  For 99% of the functions that the planner
deals with, memoization would be seriously counterproductive because
the function evaluation cost is comparable to if not less than the
lookup cost in a memo table.  (int4pl is a good case in point.)

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: David Wheeler
Date:
Subject: Re: IMMUTABLE?
Next
From: Arjen van der Meijden
Date:
Subject: Pgsql (and mysql) benchmark on T2000/Solaris and some profiling