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

Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bart Samwel <bart(at)samwel(dot)tk>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans.
Date: 2010-03-03 05:13:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > Adding SQL to indicate whether it should be re-planned or not is completely
>> > unappealing. If I could change the code, today, I'd just turn off or choose
>> > not to use PREPARE/EXECUTE. Today, PREPARE/EXECUTE seems like it should
>> > always be considered slower unless one can prove it is actually faster in a
>> > specific case, which is the exact opposite of what people expect.
>> I don't really understand most of what you're saying here, but there's
>> definitely some truth to your last sentence.  This has easily got to
>> be one of the top ten questions on -performance.
> It seems it is the problem everyone knows about but no one fixes.  :-(

I'd work on it, but Tom doesn't like my proposed fix.  *shrug*


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-03-03 05:26:29
Subject: Re: renameatt() can rename attribute of index, sequence, ...
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2010-03-03 04:59:49
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group