Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UhrDA-00033n-LN for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 00:59:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UhrDA-0002aD-68 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 00:59:24 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UhrD8-0002a5-0n for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 00:59:22 +0000 Received: from smtp.01.com ([199.36.142.181]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UhrD1-0005IN-T4 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 00:59:21 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5113900BF for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 19:59:15 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jTmpcacza9Vd for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 19:59:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F44B3900CA for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 19:59:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4981E3900C4 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 19:59:15 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 47trC6DqIqgo for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 19:59:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.47.102] (50-0-92-178.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.92.178]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B02E3900BF for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 19:59:14 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <51A6A45D.9070105@agliodbs.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:59:09 -0700 From: Josh Berkus Organization: PostgreSQL Experts Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance bug in prepared statement binding in 9.2? References: <51A699E6.3000008@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org 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