From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Searching for the cause of a bad plan |
Date: | 2007-09-27 15:24:37 |
Message-ID: | 1190906677.4194.78.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> And yet there's another trap here: if the parameter you passed in
> chanced to be one of the very common values, a plan that was optimized
> for a small number of matches would perform terribly.
I wonder could we move prepare_threshold onto the server? (from JDBC).
When we prepare a statement, we record the current setting of the
prepare_threshold parameter into the plan for that statement. Valid
settings are -1, 0 or more.
If the setting is -1 then we always re-plan the statement.
If the setting is 0 then we plan the statement generically.
If the setting is > 0 then we plan the statement according to the
specific parameter value and then decrement the prepare count, so
eventually the executions will hit 0 (above).
That would also simplify JDBC and allow the functionality from other
clients, as well as from within PLs.
We could also force the plan to be -1 when the planning involves
something that would force it to be a one-time plan, e.g. constraint
exclusion. (So we could then get rid of that parameter).
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Kempter | 2007-09-27 17:42:06 | Tuning for warm standby |
Previous Message | Csaba Nagy | 2007-09-27 15:16:06 | Re: Searching for the cause of a bad plan |