Dear Tom, the problem was repeatble in the sense repeated execution of queries made no difference on performance.
What lead to degradation was the bumping off of effective_cache_size parameter from 1000 to 64K Can any one point me the recent guide done by Sridhar and Josh i want to see what i mis(read|understood) from there ;-) [ it was on GeneralBits' Home Page ] Anyway the performance gain was from 32 secs to less than a sec what i restored cache size from 64K to 1000. I will post again with more details but at the moment i got to load my data_bank :) Regds Mallah. On Wednesday 30 Jul 2003 3:02 am, Tom Lane wrote: > Rajesh Kumar Mallah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Odd. Apparently the planner is picking a better plan in the function > >> context than in the subselect context --- which is strange since it > >> ought to have less information. > > > > [ verbose plan snipped ] > > Well, that sure seems to be the same plan. Curious that the runtime > wasn't about the same. Perhaps the slow execution of the first query > was a caching effect? If you alternate trying the query both ways, > does the speed difference persist? > > regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
