Shay Rojansky <r...@roji.org> writes:
>> To my mind there is not a lot of value in performing Bind until you
>> are ready to do Execute. The only reason the operations are separated
>> in the protocol is so that you can do multiple Executes with a row limit
>> on each one, to retrieve a large query result in chunks.
> So you would suggest changing my message chain to send Bind right after
> Execute, right? This would yield the following messages:
> P1/P2/D1/B1/E1/D2/B2/E2/S (rather than the current
> P1/D1/B1/P2/D2/B2/E1/C1/E2/C2/S)
> This would mean that I would switch to using named statements and the
> unnamed portal, rather than the current unnamed statement
> and named portals. If I recall correctly, I was under the impression that
> there are some PostgreSQL performance benefits to using the
> unnamed statement over named statements, although I admit I can't find any
> documentation backing that. Can you confirm that the two
> are equivalent performance-wise?
Hmm. I do not recall exactly what performance optimizations apply to
those two cases; they're probably not "equivalent", though I do not think
the difference is major in either case. TBH I was a bit surprised on
reading your message to hear that the system would take that sequence at
all; it's not obvious that it should be allowed to replace a statement,
named or not, while there's an open portal that depends on it.
I think you might have more issues with lifespans, since portals go away
at commit whereas named statements don't.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
