On 26.04.2017 10:49, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
On 26.04.2017 04:00, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: Are you considering some upper limit on the number of prepared statements?
In this case we need some kind of LRU for maintaining cache of autoprepared statements.
I think that it is good idea to have such limited cached - it can avoid memory overflow problem.
I will try to implement it.
I attach new patch which allows to limit the number of autoprepared statements (autoprepare_limit GUC variable).
Also I did more measurements, now with several concurrent connections and read-only statements.
Results of pgbench with 10 connections, scale 10 and read-only statements are below:
Protocol
| TPS
|
extended
| 87k
|
prepared
| 209k
|
simple+autoprepare
| 206k
|
As you can see, autoprepare provides more than 2 times speed improvement.
Also I tried to measure overhead of parsing (to be able to substitute all literals, not only string literals).
I just added extra call of pg_parse_query. Speed is reduced to 181k.
So overhead is noticeable, but still making such optimization useful.
This is why I want to ask question: is it better to implement slower but safer and more universal solution?
--
Konstantin Knizhnik
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
