From: | "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Prepared statements considered harmful |
Date: | 2006-08-31 13:06:57 |
Message-ID: | 8464.125.24.219.191.1157029617.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, August 31, 2006 18:56, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> With time, it becomes ever clearer to me that prepared SQL statements are
> just
> a really bad idea. On some days, it seems like half the performance
> problems
> in PostgreSQL-using systems are because a bad plan was cached somewhere.
Is there any kind of pattern at all to this problem? Anything
recognizable? A few typical pitfalls?
Without knowing much of the internals, I could imagine [waves hands in
vague gestures] other options--something like recognizing major changes
that upset the cost functions that went into generating a plan, and
invalidating the plan based on those; or noting bad estimates somehow as
they become apparent during execution, and annotating the plan with a
"this assumption was a bad idea" marker so you'll do better next time.
I guess you can't go far wrong if you re-define "prepared" to mean merely
"pre-parsed," but it sounds like such a waste of opportunity...
Jeroen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-08-31 13:18:01 | Re: Prepared statements considered harmful |
Previous Message | zhou bo | 2006-08-31 13:05:31 | Re: Prepared statements considered harmful |