Re: Prepared statements considered harmful

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:53:11AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:56:19PM +0700, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote:
> > That's a very common thing in processor design as well, and there's a
> > standard trick for it: the saturating two-bit counter.  It tends to work
> > pretty well for branch prediction, value prediction etc.  Usually it's the
> > first thing you reach for, so of course somebody may already have tried it
> > here and found it didn't work.
> Interesting thought. It might be worth trying. But my big question: is
> all this testing and counting actually going to be faster than just
> replanning? Postgresql's planner is not that slow.

The difference between a pre-planned query, and a plan each time
query, for me, seems to be a minimum of around 0.3 - 0.5 ms. This is
on a fairly modern AMD X2 3800+. If the tests and counting are kept
simple - I don't see why they would take anywhere near that long.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com     __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
 One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all                      and in the darkness
bindthem...
 
                          http://mark.mielke.cc/