On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:08:45 +0200 "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [snip] > Since you are looking for a sample, maybe something like that can > get you started: > > CREATE SEQUENCE temp_names; [snip] I was thinking something in the line of it. I wasn't that sure of the course to follow. Just few hours ago it looked like a swamp. Thanks, now I've more confidence it is a feasible plan. > > For me it's not clear if adding some additional caching system > > (eg. create a temp table inside the function) would obtain the > > same result as marking the function STABLE. > No, STABLE doen't help here - that is only a hint for the optimizer. I can't really appreciate the difference... or better... I think the difference may be that I can't take for granted the function will be cached if I delegate the choice to the optimiser. I'd say the optimiser will try to cache it unless it finds something better to do with the memory. If that's what happens I think I'll avoid to complicate my life with a manual cache management and just wrap the most general query in a function. Can anybody confirm that's how the optimiser work or explain the differences between providing a "manual" cache and just declaring a function STABLE? thanks -- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
