On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 at 10:28, Vladimir Sitnikov
<sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >When splitting a multi insert statement you're going to duplicate some work
>
> I do not know how this could be made more efficient as I execute parse only once, and then I send
bind+exec+bind+exec
> without intermediate sync messages, so the data should flow nicely in TCP packets.
I agree you cannot change that flow to be more efficient, but I meant
that your comparison was not fair:
1. Multi-insert vs multiple single inserts is actually executing
different queries
2. Going from Query -> Parse+Bind+Exec for the same query, only
changes protocol related things
> Here are some measurements regarding savepoints for simple vs extended
> Sure they are not very scientific, however, they show improvement for simple protocol
Alright, those improvements are not huge, but I agree it's clear that
the extended protocol has some overhead. So probably you'd want to
keep using the simple protocol to send the SAVEPOINT query.
> Apparently, sending an extra message would increase the overhead of the protocol, thus reducing the efficiency of the
application.
> What is the benefit of sending extra Sync?
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-overview.html#PROTOCOL-MESSAGE-CONCEPTS
> suggests that is is fine to mix both simple and extended messages
> depending on the needs of the application.
Yes, it's fine to mix and match extended and simple protocol. But the
protocol docs quite clearly state that a sync is required before going
back to the Simple protocol: "At completion of each series of
extended-query messages, the frontend should issue a Sync message."
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/protocol-flow.html#PROTOCOL-FLOW-EXT-QUERY
Terminating a sequence of extended messages with a Query message
instead of a Sync message is definitely undefined behaviour.