From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performance for high-volume log insertion |
Date: | 2009-04-22 02:29:16 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070904211929o32dbe138ue7f1f1f32f2784c9@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:12 PM, <david(at)lang(dot)hm> wrote:
>> Using prepared queries, at least if you use PQexecPrepared or
>> PQexecParams, also reduces the work required on the client to build the
>> whole string, and the parsing overhead on the database side to pull it
>> apart again. That's where the performance is going to be improved by
>> going that route, not so much in eliminating the planning.
>
> in a recent thread about prepared statements, where it was identified that
> since the planning took place at the time of the prepare you sometimes have
> worse plans than for non-prepared statements, a proposal was made to have a
> 'pre-parsed, but not pre-planned' version of a prepared statement. This was
> dismissed as a waste of time (IIRC by Tom L) as the parsing time was
> negligable.
>
> was that just because it was a more complex query to plan?
Joins are expensive to plan; a simple insert is not. I also disagree
that pre-parsed but not pre-planned is a waste of time, whoever said
it. Sometimes it's what you want, especially in PL/pgsql.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | James Mansion | 2009-04-22 05:26:07 | Re: performance for high-volume log insertion |
Previous Message | david | 2009-04-22 00:12:26 | Re: performance for high-volume log insertion |