| 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: | 603c8f071003022113y6f78f7aete88e28c9f2d6a0c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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*
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-03-03 05:26:29 | Re: renameatt() can rename attribute of index, sequence, ... |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-03-03 04:59:49 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Instead of trying (and failing) to allow <<label>> at the end of |