On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:50:41AM +0300, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> Definitely changing session context (search_path, date/time format, ...) may
> cause incorrect behavior of cached statements.

I wonder if we should clear the cache whenever any SET command is

> Actually you may get the same problem with explicitly prepared statements
> (certainly, in the last case, you better understand what going on and it is
> your choice whether to use or not to use prepared statement).
> The fact of failure of 7 regression tests means that autoprepare can really
> change behavior of existed program. This is why my suggestion is  to switch
> off this feature by default.

I would like to see us target something that can be enabled by default. 
Even if it only improves performance by 5%, it would be better overall
than a feature that improves performance by 90% but is only used by 1%
of our users.

> But in 99.9% real cases (my estimation plucked out of thin air:) there will
> be no such problems with autoprepare. And it can significantly improve
> performance of OLTP applications
> which are not able to use prepared statements (because of working through
> pgbouncer or any other reasons).

Right, but we can't ship something that is 99.9% accurate when the
inaccuracy is indeterminate.  The bottom line is that Postgres has a
very high bar, and I realize you are just prototyping at this point, but
the final product is going to have to address all the intricacies of the
issue for it to be added.

> Can autoprepare slow down the system?
> Yes, it can. It can happen if application perform larger number of unique
> queries and autoprepare cache size is not limited.
> In this case large (and infinitely growing) number of stored plans can
> consume a lot of memory and, what is even worse, slowdown cache lookup.
> This is why I by default limit number of cached statements
> (autoprepare_limit parameter) by 100.

Yes, good idea.

> I am almost sure that there will be some other issues with autoprepare which
> I have not encountered yet (because I mostly tested it on pgbench and
> Postgres regression tests).
> But I am also sure that benefit of doubling system performance is good
> motivation to continue work in this direction.

Right, you are still testing to see where the edges are.

> My main concern is whether to continue to improve current approach with
> local (per-backend) cache of prepared statements.
> Or create shared cache (as in Oracle). It is much more difficult to
> implement shared cache (the same problem with session context, different
> catalog snapshots, cache invalidation,...)
> but it also provides more opportunities for queries optimization and tuning.

I would continue in the per-backend cache direction at this point
because we don't even have that solved yet.  The global cache is going
to be even more complex.

Ultimately I think we are going to want global and local caches because
the plans of the local cache are much more likely to be accurate.

  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to