Re: psycopg3, prepared statements
| От | Vladimir Ryabtsev |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: psycopg3, prepared statements |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMqTPq=G1E=b32JxNo6dGk1-9qGHSCP7Puo5FCqf68nakiBo_Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: psycopg3, prepared statements (Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>) |
| Ответы |
Aw: Re: psycopg3, prepared statements
(Karsten Hilbert <Karsten.Hilbert@gmx.net>)
Re: psycopg3, prepared statements (Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com>) |
| Список | psycopg |
> it's a moment in your
> program's lifetime where you know the query to run and the arguments:
> most likely now you want to run the query too, not only to prepare it.
> (proposed default: 100).
> program's lifetime where you know the query to run and the arguments:
> most likely now you want to run the query too, not only to prepare it.
I am just thinking about type issues in some edge cases...
What if the data is such that in the first row it has some small integers,
but on subsequent rows it has larger numbers that do not fit into "integer"?
There are probably other cases similar to this, including "None" values
on the moment you want to capture types... Maybe it is more reliable to
oblige the user, who knows their data better, to explicitly supply the types
for preparation... Will any type inference work in case of types mismatch?
If yes, to what extent?
Generally I think that automatic preparation is a great idea, but if it is achieved
by sacrificing reliability to any extent, I would prefer to have such a feature
switched off by default.
> - if more than `connection.prepared_number` queries are prepared, the
> one used least recently is deallocated and evicted from the cache> (proposed default: 100).
Why do you need such logic? Why not just keep some limited number of
prepared statements? Is it a problem if a PS is in cache but rarely used?
--
Vlad
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 13:55, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
On 12/21/20 12:26 PM, Daniele Varrazzo wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 16:02, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
>
>
> I mistakenly replied Adrian privately. Following, his reply.
>
> I think so. Personally, I prefer the two step approach as I am becoming
> less and less enthusiastic about hidden 'magic'. To that end a
> global(maybe connection) setting that would disable prepare would be nice.
>
> ----
>
> To which, 1) thank you very much, Adrian, for the plpython pointer,
> I'll take a look at it.
>
> 2) About disabling the automatic prepare: the mechanism I have in mind
> is to set prepare_threshold to None on the connection instance;
So the above is something the user would have to do on each connection?
> however we could make sure to have the default attribute defined on
> the class: this way who really hates the idea of prepared statements
> can be cheeky and set `psycopg3.Connection.prepare_threshold = None`
I could get behind that. This all may be premature optimization on my
part. As long as there is some way to turn it off at some level I could
live with it.
> instead of `myconn.prepare_threshold`... More seriously, if there is a
> large base of people who think that something can go wrong with
> prepared statement we can either provide a better interface to control
> it globally or to have the feature opt-in.
>
>
> -- Daniele
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
В списке psycopg по дате отправления: