I believe this is pretty much a show stopper for anyone using jdbc to
upgrade to 8.3.x.
Any word on 8.3.2 ?
On 31-Mar-08, at 7:26 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> While testing the changes I was making to Pavel's EXECUTE USING patch
> to ensure that parameter values were being provided to the planner,
> it became painfully obvious that the planner wasn't actually *doing*
> anything with them. For example
> execute 'select count(*) from foo where x like $1' into c using $1;
> wouldn't generate an indexscan when $1 was of the form 'prefix%'.
> Some investigation showed that the planner is using the passed values
> for estimation purposes, but not for any purposes where the value
> be correct (not only this LIKE-optimization, but constraint exclusion,
> for instance). The reason is that the parameter values are made
> available to estimate_expression_value but not to
> This is a thinko in a cleanup patch I made early in 8.3 development:
> I said to myself "eval_const_expressions doesn't need any context,
> because a constant expression's value must be independent of context,
> so I can avoid changing its API". Silly me.
> The implication of this is that 8.3 is significantly worse than 8.2
> in optimizing unnamed statements in the extended-Query protocol;
> a feature that JDBC, at least, relies on.
> The fix is simple: add PlannerInfo to eval_const_expressions's
> parameter list, as was done for estimate_expression_value. I am
> slightly hesitant to do this in a stable branch, since it would break
> any third-party code that might be calling that function. I doubt
> is currently any production-grade code doing so, but if anyone out
> is actively using those planner hooks we put into 8.3, it's
> this would affect them.
> Still, the performance regression here is bad enough that I think
> is little choice. Comments/objections?
> regards, tom lane
> Sent via pgsql-jdbc mailing list (pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2008-05-23 12:48:02|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Error while executing pg_dump "invalid memory alloc request size 4294967293"|
|Previous:||From: Thomas H.||Date: 2008-05-23 09:51:52|
|Subject: Re: BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work|
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-05-23 13:20:21|
|Subject: Re: How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work |
|Previous:||From: Albretch Mueller||Date: 2008-05-21 20:46:41|
|Subject: Types of SQL statements swallowed by PG's engine|