From: | Tobias Bussmann <t(dot)bussmann(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements |
Date: | 2016-11-21 15:11:51 |
Message-ID: | 163C934C-6492-4823-82DB-1EBFB7E3E610@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> True, but we also try to avoid it whenever possible, because it's
> likely to lead to poor performance.
This non-readonly case should be way less often hit compared to other uses of prepared statements. But sure, it depends on the individual use case and a likely performance regession in these edge cases is nothing to decide for easily.
> I think it would be a good idea to come up with a way for a query to
> produce both a parallel and a non-parallel plan and pick between them
> at execution time. However, that's more work than I've been willing
> to undertake.
Wouldn't the precautionary generation of two plans always increase the planning overhead, which precisely is what one want to reduce by using prepared statements?
Best regards
Tobias
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-21 15:15:33 | Re: condition variables |
Previous Message | Vladimir Svedov | 2016-11-21 14:32:20 | postgres 9.3 postgres_fdw ::LOG: could not receive data from client: Connection reset by peer |