| From: | Bart Samwel <bart(at)samwel(dot)tk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |
| Date: | 2010-02-11 12:48:14 |
| Message-ID: | ded01eb21002110448h3a452e8fwefe575bd869ec04@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 13:41, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Bart Samwel <bart(at)samwel(dot)tk> wrote:
> > Anyhow, I have no clue how much time the planner takes. Can anybody
> provide
> > any statistics in that regard?
>
> It depends a great deal on the query, which is one of the things that
> makes implementing this rather challenging.
>
But I guess you can probably expect it to be on the same order for the same
query in generic form and with filled-in parameters? Because that's the
underlying assumption of the "ratio" criterion -- that re-planning with
filled-in parameters takes about as much time as the initial planning run
took.
Cheers,
Bart
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-11 12:53:28 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove old-style VACUUM FULL (which was known for a little while |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-11 12:44:09 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make standby server continuously retry restoring the next WAL |