Re: prepared statements suboptimal?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: rihad <rihad(at)mail(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: prepared statements suboptimal?
Date: 2007-11-07 17:10:23
Message-ID: 18415.1194455423@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

rihad <rihad(at)mail(dot)ru> writes:
> Aha, thanks for a thorough explanation. Now I understand that while
> looking for a way to fulfill the query postgres will try hard to pick
> the one requiring the least number of rows visits. I've skimmed over my
> queries: almost all of them make use of the primary key as the first
> thing in the WHERE clause (say, a username, which is the only pk in the
> table): shouldn't that be enough for postgres to *always* decide to scan
> the pk's index (since a query on a pk always returns either one or zero
> results)?

Yeah, if there's always a PK equality constraint then the dependence on
specific parameter values is much weaker, so you could probably use a
prepared statement without worrying. The cases where prepared
statements tend to suck usually involve either inequalities, or
equalities on non-unique columns where the number of matches varies
wildly for different data values. In cases like that, knowing the exact
value being compared to makes a very large difference in the rowcount
estimate.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Collin Kidder 2007-11-07 17:12:11 Re: Syntax error in a large COPY
Previous Message Nick Johnson 2007-11-07 17:07:03 strange timezone problem