Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5564.1049998513@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | More thoughts about FE/BE protocol (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol
Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol Re: [HACKERS] More thoughts about FE/BE protocol |
Список | pgsql-interfaces |
Barry Lind <blind@xythos.com> writes: > When an application needs to do a lot of the same thing (i.e > insert a thousand rows), the applicaiton tells the driver to insert a > 'batch' of 1000 rows instead of performing 1000 regular inserts. This > allows the driver to optimize this operation as one network roundtrip > instead of 1000 roundtrips. > ... How could this be accomplished with the > new FE/BE protocol "extended query" facility? Well, as far as network roundtrips go, it's always been true that you don't really have to wait for the backend's response before sending the next command. The proposal to decouple SYNC from individual commands should make this easier: you fire off N commands "blind", then a SYNC. When the sync response comes back, it's done. If any of the commands fail, all else up to the SYNC will be ignored, so you don't have the problem of commands executing against an unexpected state. (I'm not sure it'd be bright to issue thousands of commands with no SYNC, but certainly reasonable-size batches would be sensible.) As for lots of instances of the same kind of command, you could PARSE the SQL insert command itself just once (with parameter placeholders for the data values), then repeat BIND/EXECUTE pairs as often as you want. That's probably about as efficient as you're going to get without switching to COPY mode. Does that address your concern, or is there more to do? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-interfaces по дате отправления: