[postgis-users] GIST index speed

[Obe, Regina]

Wondering does this happen on just 8.3 or 8.2 as well. 

Thanks,
Regina 

-----Original Message-----
From: postgis-users-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
[mailto:postgis-users-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Paul
Ramsey
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 10:33 AM
To: PostGIS Users Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-users] GIST index speed

Bummer. Well if you need any other cock-eyed theories, let me know :)

P

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Mark Cave-Ayland
<mark.cave-ayland at siriusit.co.uk> wrote:
> Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>
>> IMMUTABLE.
>>
>> I bet when you have the function it's caching the result, and when
you
>> don't, it's re-fetching it. And because the bare result is a toasted
>> tuple, the re-fetch is a lot more expensive.
>>
>> P.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> If only it were that simple ;)  I'd already tried removing the
IMMUTABLE
> definition from SQL definition of mcatest() and it didn't make any
> difference to me - probably because adding a POSTGIS_DEBUG macro shows
that
> it only gets called once in total rather than once per iteration of
the
> nested loop scan.
>
>
> ATB,
>
> Mark.
>
> --
> Mark Cave-Ayland
> Sirius Corporation - The Open Source Experts
> http://www.siriusit.co.uk
> T: +44 870 608 0063
> _______________________________________________
> postgis-users mailing list
> postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
> http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
>
_______________________________________________
postgis-users mailing list
postgis-users at postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users
-----------------------------------------
The substance of this message, including any attachments, may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Massachusetts law. It is intended
solely for the addressee. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.