Re: When extended query protocol ends?

From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
To: Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, davecramer(at)postgres(dot)rocks, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: When extended query protocol ends?
Date: 2024-02-22 09:01:36
Message-ID: CAGECzQSKPkKVEcjZYd_TXcbH2ZeDL1hDFUWmPkneFmqAXfAQZQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 17:07, Vladimir Sitnikov
<sitnikov(dot)vladimir(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> From many measurements we know that insert into table(id, name) values(?,?),(?,?),(?,?) is much more efficient than
> sending individual bind-exec-bind-exec-bind-exec-sync messages like "insert into table(id, name) values(?,?)"
> For instance, here are some measurements: https://www.baeldung.com/spring-jdbc-batch-inserts#performance-comparisons
> Based on that measurements I assume there's a non-trivial per-message overhead.

That's quite a different case. When splitting a multi insert statement
you're going to duplicate some work, e.g. executor initialization and
possibly even planning. But when replacing one Query packet with
Parse-Bind-Exec-Sync, these 4 packets are not duplicating such
expensive work. The only thing they should be doing extra is a bit of
packet parsing, which is very cheap.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2024-02-22 09:16:50 Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2024-02-22 08:53:05 Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression