Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2009/4/11 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> No, I was complaining that a hook right there is useless and expensive.
>> transformExpr() is executed multiple times per query, potentially a very
>> large number of times per query; so even testing to see if a hook exists
>> is not a negligible cost.
> I did some tests based on pgbench.
The queries done by pgbench are completely trivial and do not stress
parser performance. Even if they did (consider cases likw an IN with a
few thousand list items), the parser is normally not a bottleneck
compared to transaction overhead, network round trips, and pgbench
itself.
> I though about different position of hook, but only in this place the
> hook is useful (because expressions are recursive).
As I keep saying, a hook there is useless, at least by itself. You
have no control over the grammar and no ability to modify what the
rest of the system understands. The only application I can think of is
to fool with the transformation of FuncCall nodes, which you could do in
a much lower-overhead way by hooking into transformFuncCall. Even that
seems pretty darn marginal for real-world problems.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
