From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |
Date: | 2010-02-09 22:21:43 |
Message-ID: | m2zl3inj7s.fsf@hi-media.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> writes:
> I think we should be careful not to over-think this. Planning isn't *that*
> costly, so apply Amdahl's Law liberally. I'm proposing some easy things we
> could do without adding much overhead or maintenance burden; I've been
> assuming that getting intimate with the planner would risk those advantages.
On a project where performance is a must (5ms per query is about all you
can ask) I have queries for which planning is 40+ ms and execute 2 to 5
ms (dataset fits in RAM, by design).
I'm then abusing pgbouncer so that the PREPARE is shared by a lot of
clients, all the ones landing into the session (transaction pooling).
See preprepare to get a better idea, even if we're yet to run it (it's
being used in production elsewhere, though, I've been told).
http://preprepare.projects.postgresql.org/
Regards,
--
dim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-09 22:23:09 | Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-09 22:07:25 | Re: Some belated patch review for "Buffers" explain analyze patch |