On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:41:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > And if you are concerned about the query's cost vs its actual output
> > (you weren't clear in your original message), there is the 'iscachable'
> > pragma for functions.
> One of the reasons we renamed that pragma to "immutable" is th
Chris Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or is there a way to advise the optimizer of the cost of my function, so
> that it will choose to not flatten the subquery (since the total cost of
> doing that will be higher)?
Not at present. AFAIR, we have removed all traces of Joe Hellerstein's
t
Alex J. Avriette wrote:
And if you are concerned about the query's cost vs its actual output
(you weren't clear in your original message), there is the 'iscachable'
pragma for functions.
I was concerned that my function was being called 4 times for each row
of the result. The cost of the function
"Alex J. Avriette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And if you are concerned about the query's cost vs its actual output
> (you weren't clear in your original message), there is the 'iscachable'
> pragma for functions.
I think that's unrelated to Chris' problem.
One of the reasons we renamed that pr
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:02:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chris Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think this should be happening (PostgreSQL 7.4.1).
>
> Sorry, this isn't a bug. Flattening the subquery is generally desirable
> behavior.
And if you are concerned about the query's
