| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bart Samwel <bart(at)samwel(dot)tk>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |
| Date: | 2010-02-26 05:11:56 |
| Message-ID: | 16678.1267161116@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I did seem to miss the part where everyone thinks this is a crock...
> But I don't remember seeing numbers on parse time or how much
> bandwidth this would potentially save. People seem to think it would
> be a big savings for just those 2 reasons? Or did I miss some other
> benefit?
Uh, no, this isn't about saving either parse time or bandwidth.
The discussion is about when to expend more planning time in hopes
of getting better plans.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takahiro Itagaki | 2010-02-26 05:53:03 | code cleanup: ss_currentScanDesc |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-26 04:59:29 | Re: A thought on Index Organized Tables |