* david(at)lang(dot)hm (david(at)lang(dot)hm) wrote:
> in a recent thread about prepared statements, where it was identified
> that since the planning took place at the time of the prepare you
> sometimes have worse plans than for non-prepared statements, a proposal
> was made to have a 'pre-parsed, but not pre-planned' version of a
> prepared statement. This was dismissed as a waste of time (IIRC by Tom L)
> as the parsing time was negligable.
> was that just because it was a more complex query to plan?
Yes, as I beleive was mentioned already, planning time for inserts is
really small. Parsing time for inserts when there's little parsing that
has to happen also isn't all *that* expensive and the same goes for
conversions from textual representations of data to binary.
We're starting to re-hash things, in my view. The low-hanging fruit is
doing multiple things in a single transaction, either by using COPY,
multi-value INSERTs, or just multiple INSERTs in a single transaction.
That's absolutely step one.
Adding in other things, where they make sense (prepared statements,
binary format for things you have as binary, etc) is a good idea if it
can be done along the way.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Stephen Frost||Date: 2009-04-22 12:44:44|
|Subject: Re: performance for high-volume log insertion|
|Previous:||From: roopabenzer||Date: 2009-04-22 07:16:12|
|Subject: Re: probelm with alter table add constraint......|