From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Vinicius Abrahao <vinnix(dot)bsd(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, Riaan van den Dool <rvddool(at)csir(dot)co(dot)za>, Brett Walker <brett(dot)walker(at)geometryit(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Geoserver-PostGIS performance problems |
Date: | 2012-07-25 19:26:15 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wMoin6YSdFYCrRVMQc+DK8tYn76cRaSEnzx_=maAdHAA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Vinicius Abrahao <vinnix(dot)bsd(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Note that it seems the preparing/planning interaction was not the
>>> poster's actual problem, but it may have been yours. As Tom Lane notes
>>> in that thread, this should get better in 9.2.
>>
>> jdbc should get some blame too -- it's really aggressive about
>> preparing queries.
>>
>
> indeed!
> Is there any reason for that?
IMNSHO it's an oversight in the core JDBC design dating back to the
beginning: you have two basic choices for executing SQL. The
unparameterized Statement or the parameterized PreparedStatement.
There should have been a 'ParamaterizedStatement' that gave the
expectation of paramaterization without setting up and permanent
server side structures to handle the query; libpq makes this
distinction and it works very well. Of course, there are various ways
to work around this but the point stands.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vinicius Abrahao | 2012-07-25 19:59:29 | Re: Geoserver-PostGIS performance problems |
Previous Message | Vinicius Abrahao | 2012-07-25 19:17:38 | Re: Geoserver-PostGIS performance problems |