From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:59:09 -0700
Message-ID: <51A6A45D.9070105@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <WM!baf2467285e204d7430791a2ab7ef3430b8f749b38b439c4f2e195a807ea6556af0d4de5a7625eb36a5f07e57108ed28!@asav-2.01.com>
References: <51A699E6.3000008@agliodbs.com>
<WM!baf2467285e204d7430791a2ab7ef3430b8f749b38b439c4f2e195a807ea6556af0d4de5a7625eb36a5f07e57108ed28!@asav-2.01.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 05/29/2013 05:14 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Here's timings overall for 29 test cycles (cycle 1 has been omitted).
> As you can see, parse+execute times are pretty much constant, as are
> application think times, but bind times vary quite a lot. In 8.4, the
> 29 cycles are constantly 4.5min to 5.75min long. In 9.2, which is the
> chart below, they are all over the place.
To be clear, the TOTAL times for 8.4 are 4.5 to 5.75 minutes long. Bind
times in 8.4 are a more-or-less constant 0.75 minutes.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2?
In-Reply-To: <51A6A45D.9070105@agliodbs.com>
* 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