Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UiUT9-0006mR-Up for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 31 May 2013 18:54:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UiUT9-00080i-EJ for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 31 May 2013 18:54:31 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UiUT7-00080Y-89 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 31 May 2013 18:54:29 +0000 Received: from smtp.01.com ([199.36.142.181]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1UiUT2-0004qa-Mv for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 31 May 2013 18:54:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE8239024F; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:54:23 -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 K9hKPdpEu1KD; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:54:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC3F39025E; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:54:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2033739025D; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:54:23 -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 9M59OK5JgjzJ; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:54:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [172.47.23.103] (70-36-143-10.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [70.36.143.10]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA02739024F; Fri, 31 May 2013 13:54:22 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <51A8F1D7.2000109@agliodbs.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 11:54:15 -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: Amit Kapila CC: 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> <000601ce5dd1$ec1d6320$c4582960$@kapila@huawei.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: -1.9 (-) 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 > When you say interactively, does it mean that you are using psql to test the same? Yes. Of course, on the psql command line, there's no separate BIND step, just PREPARE and EXECUTE. > From the changes, it doesn't seem that any of such changes can cause the problem you have seen. No, but clearly in this case something is broken. > Do you think it can be due to > a. JDBC - communication, encoding or some other changes > b. can we assume that plans generated for all statements are same, if not it might have some cost for query plan initialization (InitPlan) but again it should not be that big cost. I don't think we can assume that, no. > How do measure individual bind time cost (is the cost of only server side or it includes client bind or ..)?