Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work
Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at>
From: Michael Paesold <mpaesold@gmx.at>
To: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-jdbc@postgreSQL.org
Date: 2008-04-01T14:21:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Am 01.04.2008 um 13:14 schrieb Dave Cramer: > > On 1-Apr-08, at 6:25 AM, Michael Paesold wrote: > >> >> Am 01.04.2008 um 01:26 schrieb Tom Lane: >>> While testing the changes I was making to Pavel's EXECUTE USING >>> patch >>> to ensure that parameter values were being provided to the planner, >>> it became painfully obvious that the planner wasn't actually *doing* >>> anything with them. For example >>> >>> execute 'select count(*) from foo where x like $1' into c using $1; >>> >>> wouldn't generate an indexscan when $1 was of the form 'prefix%'. >> ... >>> The implication of this is that 8.3 is significantly worse than 8.2 >>> in optimizing unnamed statements in the extended-Query protocol; >>> a feature that JDBC, at least, relies on. >>> >>> The fix is simple: add PlannerInfo to eval_const_expressions's >>> parameter list, as was done for estimate_expression_value. I am >>> slightly hesitant to do this in a stable branch, since it would >>> break >>> any third-party code that might be calling that function. I doubt >>> there >>> is currently any production-grade code doing so, but if anyone out >>> there >>> is actively using those planner hooks we put into 8.3, it's >>> conceivable >>> this would affect them. >>> >>> Still, the performance regression here is bad enough that I think >>> there >>> is little choice. Comments/objections? >> >> Yeah, please fix this performance regression in the 8.3 branch. >> This would affect most of the JDBC applications out there, I think. >> > Was the driver ever changed to take advantage of the above strategy? IIRC, it is used in most cases with the v3 protocol, as long as you don't set a prepare-threshold. Best Regards Michael Paesold