Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.

From: Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
To: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.
Date: 2010-02-09 13:46:55
Message-ID: 4B71674F.6030505@xs4all.nl (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Yeb Havinga wrote:

>> I've been discussing this with Josh, Heikki, and Peter E. over the 
>> past few weeks.
> Is this searchable in the archives? I'm interested in ideas discussed.

No, sorry.  These were face-to-face discussions at linux.conf.au and FOSDEM.


>> If a prepared statement takes parameters, and the generic plan has a 
>> high projected cost, re-plan each EXECUTE individually with all its 
>> parameter values bound.  It may or may not help, but unless the 
>> planner is vastly over-pessimistic, re-planning isn't going to 
>> dominate execution time for these cases anyway.

> This sounds like a really nice to have feature. Maybe it'd also be 
> possible to skip replanning between executes if the current bound values 
> are 'indexwise-equivalent' to the values used at previous planning, i.e. 
> nothing in the statistics indicates that execution cost would be (much) 
> different. Are there more ways to cut down on planning time? Obviously 
> some plannedstatement/plannerinfo structures could be kept, but maybe 
> it'd also be possible to plan only that part of the join tree where the 
> params are used in a scan/join qual.

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.


Jeroen

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2010-02-09 13:50:32
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2010-02-09 13:45:01
Subject: Re: TCP keepalive support for libpq

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group