> > One downside of this approach is the memory usage. This was more-or-less > > Bar-napkin math tells me in a worst-case architecture and braindead byte alignment, we'd burn 64 bytes per struct, so the 100K tables cited would be about 6.25MB of memory.
The obvious low-memory alternative would be to make a prepared statement, though that does nothing to cut down on the roundtrips. I think this is a good trade off.
