Re: Prepared statements considered harmful

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:53:11AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:56:19PM +0700, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> > That's a very common thing in processor design as well, and there's a
> > standard trick for it: the saturating two-bit counter. It tends to work
> > pretty well for branch prediction, value prediction etc. Usually it's the
> > first thing you reach for, so of course somebody may already have tried it
> > here and found it didn't work.
> Interesting thought. It might be worth trying. But my big question: is
> all this testing and counting actually going to be faster than just
> replanning? Postgresql's planner is not that slow.

The difference between a pre-planned query, and a plan each time
query, for me, seems to be a minimum of around 0.3 - 0.5 ms. This is
on a fairly modern AMD X2 3800+. If the tests and counting are kept
simple - I don't see why they would take anywhere near that long.

Cheers,
mark

--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...

http://mark.mielke.cc/