| From: | david(at)lang(dot)hm |
|---|---|
| To: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2009-01-01 20:24:52 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.1.10.0901011222190.15026@asgard.lang.hm |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It's already done in 8.3 for unnamed plans, isn't it?
forgive my ignorance here, but if it's unnamed how can you reference it
later to take advantage of the parsing?
I may just be not understanding the terms being used here.
David Lang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | david | 2009-01-01 20:40:11 | Re: Poor plan choice in prepared statement |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-01 20:24:12 | Re: Poor plan choice in prepared statement |