"Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about this: Instead of arguing in the abstract, tell me in
> concrete terms how you would address the very specific example I gave,
> where myfunc() is a user-written function. To make it a little more
> challenging, try this: myfunc() can behave very differently depending
> on the parameters, and sometimes (but not always), the application
> knows how it will behave and could suggest a good execution plan.
A word to the wise:
regression=# explain select * from tenk1 where ten > 5 and ten < 9
regression-# and myfunc(unique1,unique2);
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..533.00 rows=982 width=244)
Filter: ((ten > 5) AND (ten < 9) AND myfunc(unique1, unique2))
(2 rows)
regression=# explain select * from tenk1 where myfunc(unique1,unique2)
regression-# and ten > 5 and ten < 9;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tenk1 (cost=0.00..533.00 rows=982 width=244)
Filter: (myfunc(unique1, unique2) AND (ten > 5) AND (ten < 9))
(2 rows)
I might have taken your original complaint more seriously if it
weren't so blatantly bogus. Your query as written absolutely
would not have evaluated myfunc() first, because there was no
reason for the planner to reorder the WHERE list.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
