On 8/27/07, beickhof@xxxxxxxxxxx <beickhof@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, I am considering a function that does read from a table, but the
> table contents change extremely infrequently (the table is practically a
> list of constants). Would it be safe to declare the function IMMUTABLE
> provided that the table itself is endowed with a trigger that will drop
> and recreate the function any time the table contents are modified? In
> this way, it seems that the database would gain the performance benefit of
> an immutable function for the long stretches of time in between changes to
> the table.
>
make the function STABLE instead
> I apologize that I don't have any details -- it is still very early in the
> development of the database design, and I was just hoping to get a better
> understanding of whether an immutable function would safely offer any
> benefit in this scenario.
>
do you know that early optimization is the root of all evil?
--
regards,
Jaime Casanova
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs and the universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots.
So far, the universe is winning."
Richard Cook
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
