[PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Mario Splivalo
I have a function, looking like this: CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION get_memo_display_queue_size(a_service_id integer) RETURNS integer AS $BODY$ SELECT COUNT(*)::integer FROM v_messages_memo LEFT JOIN messages_memo_displayed ON id = message_id WHERE

[PERFORM] DBT Presentation Location?

2009-03-09 Thread Lee Hughes
Hi- where can I find location of the DBT presentation in Portland next week? Thanks- Lee

Re: [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Tom Lane
Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes: Now I'm confused, why is 'sql' function much slower than 'direct' SELECT? Usually the reason for this is that the planner chooses a different plan when it has knowledge of the particular value you are searching for than when it does not. I

Re: [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Guillaume Cottenceau
Tom Lane tgl 'at' sss.pgh.pa.us writes: Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes: Now I'm confused, why is 'sql' function much slower than 'direct' SELECT? Usually the reason for this is that the planner chooses a different plan when it has knowledge of the particular value you are

Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Guillaume Smet
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Guillaume Cottenceau g...@mnc.ch wrote: Until it's possible to specifically tell the JDBC driver (and/or PG?) to not plan once for all runs (or is there something better to think of?), or the whole thing would be more clever (off the top of my head, PG could try

Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Tom Lane
Guillaume Smet guillaume.s...@gmail.com writes: Unnamed prepared statements are planned after binding the values, starting with 8.3, or more precisely starting with 8.3.2 as early 8.3 versions were partially broken on this behalf. No, 8.2 did it too (otherwise we wouldn't have considered 8.3.0

Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Andreas Wenk
Tom Lane schrieb: Guillaume Smet guillaume.s...@gmail.com writes: Unnamed prepared statements are planned after binding the values, starting with 8.3, or more precisely starting with 8.3.2 as early 8.3 versions were partially broken on this behalf. No, 8.2 did it too (otherwise we wouldn't

Re: [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Mario Splivalo
Tom Lane wrote: Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes: Now I'm confused, why is 'sql' function much slower than 'direct' SELECT? Usually the reason for this is that the planner chooses a different plan when it has knowledge of the particular value you are searching for than when

Re: [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Mario Splivalo
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: Now I'm confused, why is 'sql' function much slower than 'direct' SELECT? Usually the reason for this is that the planner chooses a different plan when it has knowledge of the particular value you are searching for than when it does not. Yes, and since Mario is

Re: [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Tom Lane
Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes: Is this difference normal? It's hard to tell, because you aren't comparing apples to apples. Try a prepared statement, like prepare foo(int) as SELECT COUNT(*)::int4 FROM _v1 WHERE service_id = $1 ; execute foo(504);

Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Dave Cramer
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Guillaume Smet guillaume.s...@gmail.com writes: Unnamed prepared statements are planned after binding the values, starting with 8.3, or more precisely starting with 8.3.2 as early 8.3 versions were partially broken on this

Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread James Mansion
The driver will use unnamed statements for all statements until it sees the same statement N times where N is 5 I believe, after that it uses a named statement. Shame there's no syntax for it to pass the a table of the parameters to the server when it creates the named statement as

Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Scott Carey
1. And how do you do that from JDBC? There is no standard concept of 'unnamed' prepared statements in most database APIs, and if there were the behavior would be db specific. Telling PG to plan after binding should be more flexible than unnamed prepared statements - or at least more

Re: [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Mario Splivalo
Tom Lane wrote: Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes: Is this difference normal? It's hard to tell, because you aren't comparing apples to apples. Try a prepared statement, like [...cut...] which should produce results similar to the function. You could then use explain analyze

Re: [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Tom Lane
Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes: So, it is the same. When I do EXPLAIN ANALYZE EXECUTE I get completely different execution plan: ... - Bitmap Heap Scan on messages (cost=287.98..21192.42 rows=12848 width=4) (actual time=0.049..0.169 rows=62 loops=1)

Re: [PERFORM] DBT Presentation Location?

2009-03-09 Thread Mark Wong
On Mar 9, 2009, at 7:28 AM, Lee Hughes wrote: Hi- where can I find location of the DBT presentation in Portland next week? It'll be at Portland State University at 7pm Thursday March 12. It's in the Fourth Avenue Building (FAB) room 86-01, on 1900 SW 4th Ave. It's in G-10 on the map:

Re: [JDBC] [PERFORM] Query much slower when run from postgres function

2009-03-09 Thread Scott Carey
On 3/9/09 1:40 PM, Oliver Jowett oli...@opencloud.com wrote: Scott Carey wrote: 1. And how do you do that from JDBC? There is no standard concept of I've suggested that as a protocol-level addition in the past, but it would mean a new protocol version. The named vs. unnamed statement