Re: track_planning causing performance regression
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WzmVP4ibDDSipQi_BamMrPeB72X8iW0R-T9gA-ZToG=m9g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: track_planning causing performance regression (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: track_planning causing performance regression
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 1:55 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > I disagree with the conclusion though. It seems to me that if you > > really have this workload that consists in these few queries and want > > to get better performance, you'll anyway use a connection pooler > > and/or use prepared statements, which will make this overhead > > disappear entirely, and will also yield an even bigger performance > > improvement. A quick test using pgbench -M prepared, with > > track_planning enabled, with still way too many connections already > > shows a 25% improvement over the -M simple without track_planning. > > I understand your point. But IMO the default setting basically should > be safer value, i.e., off at least until the problem disappears. +1 -- this regression seems unacceptable to me. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: