Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3889FB293 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:19:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62696-03 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:19:46 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFB99FB1D6 for ; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:19:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9I5JdhK016007; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:19:40 -0400 (EDT) To: "Merlin Moncure" cc: "Bucky Jordan" , Rohit_Behl , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Jdbc/postgres performance In-reply-to: References: <78ED28FACE63744386D68D8A9D1CF5D4209D1C@MAIL.corp.lumeta.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Merlin Moncure" message dated "Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:11:40 +0530" Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:19:39 -0400 Message-ID: <16006.1161148779@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.088 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/341 X-Sequence-Number: 21470 "Merlin Moncure" writes: > this is not really a jdbc issue, just a practical problem with > prepared statements... Specifically, that the OP is running a 7.4 backend, which was our first venture into prepared parameterized statements. PG 8.1 will do better, 8.2 should do better yet. regards, tom lane