Re: Performance of Parser?

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jignesh Shah <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance of Parser?
Date: 2007-01-14 03:08:57
Message-ID: 07997618-2474-4A53-A2C4-692909335A3B@fastcrypt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance


On 13-Jan-07, at 7:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Jignesh Shah <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>> The appserver is basically using bunch of prepared statements that
>> the
>> server should be executing directly without doing the parsing again.
>
> Better have another look at that theory, because you're clearly
> spending
> a lot of time in parsing (operator resolution to be specific). I
> think
> your client code is failing to re-use prepared statements the way you
> think it is.

This is exactly what is happening. The driver needs to cache
statements for this to work.

Dave
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that
> your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-01-14 04:22:49 Re: Corrupt database? 8.1/FreeBSD6.0
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-01-14 00:48:14 Re: Performance of Parser?

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shoaib Mir 2007-01-14 11:47:15 Re: Large table performance
Previous Message Dave Dutcher 2007-01-14 02:40:18 Re: Large table performance