Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V4x8y-0007Om-Kp for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:58:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V4x8y-00035o-3T for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:58:32 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V4x8w-00034Q-OM for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:58:30 +0000 Received: from smtp.01.com ([199.36.142.181] helo=smtp-out-2.01.com) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V4x8p-0004p1-D3 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 17:58:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4019390297; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:58:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp-out-2.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oGofuZmpQRyQ; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:58:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp-out-2.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8576239029F; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:58:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 762B3390298; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:58:21 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp-out-2.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id BNqoDlQXDxJn; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:58:21 -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 81D4A390297; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 12:58:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <51FAA1B8.6040809@agliodbs.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:58:16 -0700 From: Josh Berkus Organization: PostgreSQL Experts Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 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: 1.5.2 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 Amit, All: So we just retested this on 9.3b2. The performance is the same as 9.1 and 9.2; that is, progressively worse as the test cycles go on, and unacceptably slow compared to 8.4. Some issue introduced in 9.1 is causing BINDs to get progressively slower as the PARSEs BINDs get run repeatedly. Per earlier on this thread, that can bloat to 200X time required for a BIND, and it's definitely PostgreSQL-side. I'm trying to produce a test case which doesn't involve the user's application. However, hints on other things to analyze would be keen. -- 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