From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, bricklen <bricklen(at)gmail(dot)com>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Poor plan choice in prepared statement |
Date: | 2008-12-31 16:01:18 |
Message-ID: | 20081231160118.GE3809@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane escribió:
> Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> writes:
> > I have also had a case where one query would take a couple hundred
> > ms to parse, but was fairly fast to plan and execute (1/3 the parse
> > cost) -- yet another case where a prepared statement that re-plans
> > each execution would be helpful. At least you can prevent SQL
> > injection and cut the parse cost. Its not all about the cost of
> > planning the query.
>
> The point of a prepared statement IMHO is to do the planning only once.
> There's necessarily a tradeoff between that and having a plan that's
> perfectly adapted to specific parameter values.
I think it has been shown enough times that the performance drop caused
by a worse plan can be orders of magnitudes worse than what's gained by
producing the plan only once. It does not seem a bad idea to provide a
way to carry out only the parse phase, and postpone planning until the
parameters have been received.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-01 13:44:50 | Re: Poor plan choice in prepared statement |
Previous Message | bricklen | 2008-12-31 15:11:17 | Re: Poor plan choice in prepared statement |