Neil Conway wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:25:24 +1000
>"Ashley Cambrell" <ash@freaky-namuh.com> wrote:
>
>>What are the chances that the BE/FE will be altered to take advantage of
>>prepare / execute? Or is it something that will "never happen"?
>>
>
>Is there a need for this? The current patch I'm working on just
>does everything using SQL statements, which I don't think is
>too bad (the typical client programmer won't actually need to
>see them, their interface should wrap the PREPARE/EXECUTE stuff
>for them).
>
I remember an email Hannu sent (I originally thought Tome sent it but I
found the email*) that said postgresql spends a lot of time parsing sql
(compared to oracle), so if the BE/FE and libpq were extended to support
pg_prepare / pg_bind, then it might make repetitive queries quicker.
"if we could save half of parse/optimise time by saving query plans, then
the backend performance would go up from 1097 to 100000/(91.1-16.2)=1335
updates/sec."
Hannu's email doesn't seem to be in google groups, but it's titled
"Oracle vs PostgreSQL in real life" (2002-03-01). I can attach it if
people can't find it.
>
>On the other hand, there are already a few reasons to make some
>changes to the FE/BE protocol (NOTIFY messages, transaction state,
>and now possibly PREPARE/EXECUTE -- anything else?). IMHO, each of
>these isn't worth changing the protocol by itself, but perhaps if
>we can get all 3 in one swell foop it might be a good idea...
>
Passing on a possible 1/3 speed improvement doesn't sound like a bad
thing.. :-)
Hannu: You mentioned that you already had an experimental patch that did
it? Was that the same sort of thing as Neil's patch (SPI), or did it
include a libpq patch as well?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Neil
>
Ashley Cambrell
