Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ui9JI-0003yh-4Y for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 20:18:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ui9JH-0000fi-GM for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 20:18:55 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:7903:4::125]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Ui9JG-0000fd-H1 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 20:18:54 +0000 Received: from smtp.01.com ([199.36.142.181]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Ui9JA-0000J1-13 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 30 May 2013 20:18:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A7929402D for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:18:47 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-1.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-1.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a38H7V7-cM9R for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:18:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBAD8294122 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:18:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6D929402D for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:18:46 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-1.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-1.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 128w_kXjBqAs for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:18:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [172.47.23.103] (70-36-143-10.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [70.36.143.10]) by smtp-out-1.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F498294050 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 15:18:45 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <51A7B424.7090209@agliodbs.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 13:18:44 -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> <00b301ce5d3d$697449a0$3c5cdce0$@kapila@huawei.com> <51A79512.4020200@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 > This is why I'm asking them to run tests on 9.1. If 9.1 doesn't exhibit > this behavior, then customplan is liable to be at fault. 9.1 shows the same performance as 9.2. So it's not the custom plan thing. -- 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