From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nigel J. Andrews <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk>
Cc: L J Bayuk <ljb220@mindspring.com>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Released updated Tcl interfaces: pgin.tcl-2.1.0,
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:08:56 -0400
Message-ID: <24110.1087945736@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0406222310170.2900-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0406222310170.2900-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk>
"Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk> writes:
> However, since making some changes to my code I've not had time to do the
> investigation so I just thought I'd ask if there's been any reports on the
> relative speed of normal sql execution against prepared statements.
You can lose if the prepared statements are parameterized in such a way
that the planner can't see critical information. This has been hashed
over many a time in the pgsql-performance archives (though mostly in the
context of queries in plpgsql functions). Try EXPLAIN EXECUTE and see
if you get a materially different plan than with the straight query.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, nandrews@investsystems.co.uk, ljb220@mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Released updated Tcl interfaces: pgin.tcl-2.1.0,
In-Reply-To: <24110.1087945736@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox