Ivan Voras wrote:
I have a SQL function (which I've pasted below) and while testing its
code directly (outside a function), this is the normal, default
plan:
http://explain.depesz.com/s/vfP (67 ms)
and this is the plain with enable_seqscan turned off:
http://explain.depesz.com/s/EFP (27
On 8 June 2012 11:58, Albe Laurenz laurenz.a...@wien.gv.at wrote:
Did you take caching of table data in the buffer cache or the filesystem
cache into account? Did you run your tests several times in a row and
were the actual execution times consistent?
Yes, and yes.
Would tweaking
2012/5/27 Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org:
On 27 May 2012 05:28, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello
2012/5/26 Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org:
Hello,
I have a SQL function (which I've pasted below) and while testing its
code directly (outside a function), this is the normal,
Hello,
I have a SQL function (which I've pasted below) and while testing its
code directly (outside a function), this is the normal, default plan:
http://explain.depesz.com/s/vfP (67 ms)
and this is the plain with enable_seqscan turned off:
http://explain.depesz.com/s/EFP (27 ms)
Disabling
Hello
2012/5/26 Ivan Voras ivo...@freebsd.org:
Hello,
I have a SQL function (which I've pasted below) and while testing its
code directly (outside a function), this is the normal, default plan:
http://explain.depesz.com/s/vfP (67 ms)
and this is the plain with enable_seqscan turned off:
