Re: Performance problems with prepared statements

From: Theo Kramer <theo(at)flame(dot)co(dot)za>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance problems with prepared statements
Date: 2007-10-10 19:34:00
Message-ID: 1192044840.2549.21.camel@fedmac
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 17:00 +0200, Cédric Villemain wrote:
> <snip>
> Reading the manual, you can learn that prepared statement can (not)
> follow the same plan as direct query:
> the plan is make before pg know the value of the variable.
>
> See 'Notes' http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/sql-prepare.html

Thanks, had missed that, however, I am afraid that I fail to see how
preparing a query using PQprepare() and then executing it using
PQexecPrepared(), is 8 thousand times slower than directly executing
it.,, ( 403386.583ms/50.0ms = 8067 ).

When doing a 'manual' prepare and explain analyze I get the following

rascal=# prepare cq (char(12), smallint, integer) as SELECT oid,
calllog_mainteng, calllog_phase, calllog_self FROM calllog
WHERE calllog_mainteng = $1
AND calllog_phase = $2
AND calllog_self < $3
OR calllog_mainteng = $1
AND calllog_phase < $2
ORDER BY calllog_mainteng DESC,
calllog_phase DESC,
calllog_self DESC limit 25;
PREPARE
rascal=# explain analyze execute cq ('124 ', 8, 366942);
QUERY
PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=0.00..232.73 rows=25 width=26) (actual time=2.992..3.178
rows=25 loops=1)
-> Index Scan Backward using calllog_rmc_idx on calllog
(cost=0.00..38651.38 rows=4152 width=26) (actual time=2.986..3.116
rows=25 loops=1)
Index Cond: (calllog_mainteng = $1)
Filter: (((calllog_phase = $2) AND (calllog_self < $3)) OR
(calllog_phase < $2))
Total runtime: 3.272 ms

So I suspect that there is something more fundamental here...

--
Regards
Theo

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2007-10-10 19:35:58 Re: hashjoin chosen over 1000x faster plan
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-10-10 19:01:03 Re: hashjoin chosen over 1000x faster plan