>
> One downside of this approach is the memory usage. This was more-or-less
>
>
Bar-napkin math tells me in a worst-case architecture and braindead byte
alignment, we'd burn 64 bytes per struct, so the 100K tables cited would be
about 6.25MB of memory.
The obvious low-memory alternative would be to make a prepared statement,
though that does nothing to cut down on the roundtrips.
I think this is a good trade off.