Thread: Efficiency Problem
Hi all,<br /> I'm composing a query from a web application of type:<br /><br /> <b>SELECT * FROM table WHERE a_text_fieldLIKE replace_something ('%</b><b><i>a_given_string</i></b><b>%');</b><br /><br /> The function replace_something(... ) is a stored procedure that replaces some particular characters with others.<br /> The problem isthat I noticed that this query is inefficient... and I think that the replace_something ( ... ) function is called foreach row of the table.<br /><br /> This observation is motivated by the fact that it takes around 30 seconds to executeon the table (of about 25,000 rows), whereas if I execute:<br /> <b>SELECT * FROM table WHERE a_text_field LIKE'</b><b><i>pre_processed_string</i></b><b><i></i></b><b>';</b><br /><br /> where<i> pre_processed_string</i><i> </i>isthe result of the application of replace_something ('%<i>a_given_string</i>%') it just takes 164ms.<br /><br /> Theexecution of <br /> <b>SELECT replace_something ('%</b><b><i>a_given_string</i></b><b>%')</b><br /> takes only 14ms.<br/><br /> Summarizing, <br /> - Replace function: 14ms<br /> - SELECT query without replace function: 164ms<br/> - SELECT query with replace function: 30.000ms<br /><br /> Morever, I cannot create a stored procedure thatprecalculate the <i>pre_processed_string </i>and executes the query, since I dinamically <br /> compose other conditionsin the WHERE clause.<br /><br /> Any suggestion?<br /><br /> Thank you.<br /><i></i>
Hi, 1) Is function marked as immutable? 2) if immutable doesnt help... It should be possible execute it first, and use it in other dynamics things in where... Cheers, Misa Sent from my Windows Phone ------------------------------ From: Surfing Sent: 17/03/2013 12:16 To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: [SQL] Efficiency Problem Hi all, I'm composing a query from a web application of type: *SELECT * FROM table WHERE a_text_field LIKE replace_something ('%** a_given_string**%');* The function replace_something( ... ) is a stored procedure that replaces some particular characters with others. The problem is that I noticed that this query is inefficient... and I think that the replace_something ( ... ) function is called for each row of the table. This observation is motivated by the fact that it takes around 30 seconds to execute on the table (of about 25,000 rows), whereas if I execute: *SELECT * FROM table WHERE a_text_field LIKE '**pre_processed_string**** ';* where* pre_processed_string** *is the result of the application of replace_something ('%*a_given_string*%') it just takes 164ms. The execution of *SELECT replace_something ('%**a_given_string**%')* takes only 14ms. Summarizing, - Replace function: 14ms - SELECT query without replace function: 164ms - SELECT query with replace function: 30.000ms Morever, I cannot create a stored procedure that precalculate the *pre_processed_string *and executes the query, since I dinamically compose other conditions in the WHERE clause. Any suggestion? Thank you. **
IMMUTABLE solved the problem.
Thank you!
Thank you!
Il 17/03/2013 12.39, Misa Simic ha scritto:
Hi,
1) Is function marked as immutable?
2) if immutable doesnt help... It should be possible execute it first, and use it in other dynamics things in where...
Cheers,
Misa
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Surfing
Sent: 17/03/2013 12:16
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: [SQL] Efficiency Problem
Hi all,
I'm composing a query from a web application of type:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE a_text_field LIKE replace_something ('%a_given_string%');
The function replace_something( ... ) is a stored procedure that replaces some particular characters with others.
The problem is that I noticed that this query is inefficient... and I think that the replace_something ( ... ) function is called for each row of the table.
This observation is motivated by the fact that it takes around 30 seconds to execute on the table (of about 25,000 rows), whereas if I execute:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE a_text_field LIKE 'pre_processed_string';
where pre_processed_string is the result of the application of replace_something ('%a_given_string%') it just takes 164ms.
The execution of
SELECT replace_something ('%a_given_string%')
takes only 14ms.
Summarizing,
- Replace function: 14ms
- SELECT query without replace function: 164ms
- SELECT query with replace function: 30.000ms
Morever, I cannot create a stored procedure that precalculate the pre_processed_string and executes the query, since I dinamically
compose other conditions in the WHERE clause.
Any suggestion?
Thank you.
Hi,
1) Is function marked as immutable?
2) if immutable doesnt help... It should be possible execute it first, and use it in other dynamics things in where...
Cheers,
Misa
Sent from my Windows Phone
1) Is function marked as immutable?
2) if immutable doesnt help... It should be possible execute it first, and use it in other dynamics things in where...
Cheers,
Misa
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Surfing
Sent: 17/03/2013 12:16
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: [SQL] Efficiency Problem
Hi all,
I'm composing a query from a web application of type:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE a_text_field LIKE replace_something ('%a_given_string%');
The function replace_something( ... ) is a stored procedure that replaces some particular characters with others.
The problem is that I noticed that this query is inefficient... and I think that the replace_something ( ... ) function is called for each row of the table.
This observation is motivated by the fact that it takes around 30 seconds to execute on the table (of about 25,000 rows), whereas if I execute:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE a_text_field LIKE 'pre_processed_string';
where pre_processed_string is the result of the application of replace_something ('%a_given_string%') it just takes 164ms.
The execution of
SELECT replace_something ('%a_given_string%')
takes only 14ms.
Summarizing,
- Replace function: 14ms
- SELECT query without replace function: 164ms
- SELECT query with replace function: 30.000ms
Morever, I cannot create a stored procedure that precalculate the pre_processed_string and executes the query, since I dinamically
compose other conditions in the WHERE clause.
Any suggestion?
Thank you.