Re: Out of memory error on huge resultset - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc
From | snpe |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Out of memory error on huge resultset |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200210112233.24505.snpe@snpe.co.yu Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Out of memory error on huge resultset (Dave Cramer <Dave@micro-automation.net>) |
Responses |
Re: Out of memory error on huge resultset
Re: Out of memory error on huge resultset |
List | pgsql-jdbc |
There is jxdbcon Postgresql jdbc driver with setFetchSize method. Last version don't wokr with pgsql 7.3 and I don't test more. I will try next day, when I download pgsql 7.2 regards Haris Peco On Friday 11 October 2002 07:59 pm, Dave Cramer wrote: > Agreed, but there are selects where count(*) won't work. Even so, what > we are talking about here is hiding the implementation of cursors behind > the result set. What I would envision is some sort of cacheing where > when the user set's the fetchsize to 10 for instance we do the select, > and when they ask for next() we check to see if we have these rows in > the cache, and go get them if necessary 10 at a time, possibly keeping > one set of ten behind where we are and one set of 10 ahead of where we > are. So recalling that resultSets have absolute positioning, as well as > first(), and last() positioning we need the ability to move with the > minimum number of trips to the backend. > > As it turns out the move command in postgres does support moving to the > end (move 0 ); at the moment this is considered a bug, and is on the > todo list to be removed. I expect we can get some sort of implementation > which allows us to move to the end ( move end ) > > Dave > > On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 13:12, Dror Matalon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm jumping in late into this discussion but ... > > > > In my mind a lot of these features break the model. From an application > > prespective, if I want to do last, I do a count(*) and then I do a fetch > > with limit; Not quite the same, but all these methods of fetching the > > whole data locally and manipulating it to a large exten defeat the > > purpose. Let the backend do the work, instead of trying to replicate the > > functionality in JDBC. > > > > That said I do understand that some of these are required by the JDBC 2.0 > > spec. > > > > Dror > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Aaron Mulder wrote: > > > It wouldn't be bad to start with a naive implementation of > > > last()... If the only problem we have is that last() doesn't perform > > > well, we're probably making good progress. :) > > > On the other hand, I would think the updateable result sets would > > > be the most challenging; does the server provide any analogous features > > > with its cursors? > > > > > > Aaron > > > > > > On 11 Oct 2002, Dave Cramer wrote: > > > > This really is an artifact of the way that postgres gives us the > > > > data. > > > > > > > > When you query the backend you get *all* of the results in the query, > > > > and there is no indication of how many results you are going to get. > > > > In simple selects it would be possible to get some idea by using > > > > count(field), but this wouldn't work nearly enough times to make it > > > > useful. So that leaves us with using cursors, which still won't tell > > > > you how many rows you are getting back, but at least you won't have > > > > the memory problems. > > > > > > > > This approach is far from trivial which is why it hasn't been > > > > implemented as of yet, keep in mind that result sets support things > > > > like move(n), first(), last(), the last of which will be the > > > > trickiest. Not to mention updateable result sets. > > > > > > > > As it turns out there is a mechanism to get to the end move 0 in > > > > 'cursor', which currently is being considered a bug. > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 11:44, Doug Fields wrote: > > > > > At 08:27 AM 10/11/2002, snpe wrote: > > > > > >Barry, > > > > > > Is it true ? > > > > > >I create table with one column varchar(500) and enter 1 milion > > > > > > rows with length 10-20 character.JDBC query 'select * from a' get > > > > > > error 'out of memory', but psql not. > > > > > >I insert 8 milion rows and psql work fine yet (slow, but work) > > > > > > > > > > The way the code works in JDBC is, in my opinion, a little poor but > > > > > possibly mandated by JDBC design specs. > > > > > > > > > > It reads the entire result set from the database backend and caches > > > > > it in a horrible Vector (which should really be a List and which > > > > > should at least make an attempt to get the # of rows ahead of time > > > > > to avoid all the resizing problems). > > > > > > > > > > Then, it doles it out from memory as you go through the ResultSet > > > > > with the next() method. > > > > > > > > > > I would have hoped (but was wrong) that it streamed - WITHOUT > > > > > LOADING THE WHOLE THING - through the result set as each row is > > > > > returned from the backend, thus ensuring that you never use much > > > > > more memory than one line. EVEN IF you have to keep the connection > > > > > locked. > > > > > > > > > > The latter is what I expected it to do. The former is what it does. > > > > > So, it necessitates you creating EVERY SELECT query which you think > > > > > has more than a few rows (or which you think COULD have more than a > > > > > few rows, "few" being defined by our VM memory limits) into a > > > > > cursor based query. Really klugy. I intend to write a class to do > > > > > that for every SELECT query for me automatically. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > >In C library is 'execute query' without fetch - in jdbc execute > > > > > > fetch all rows > > > > > >and this is problem - I think that executequery must prepare query > > > > > > and fetch (ResultSet.next or ...) must fetch only fetchSize rows. > > > > > >I am not sure, but I think that is problem with jdbc, not > > > > > > postgresql Hackers ? > > > > > >Does psql fetch all rows and if not how many ? > > > > > >Can I change fetch size in psql ? > > > > > >CURSOR , FETCH and MOVE isn't solution. > > > > > >If I use jdbc in third-party IDE, I can't force this solution > > > > > > > > > > > >regards > > > > > > > > > > > >On Thursday 10 October 2002 06:40 pm, Barry Lind wrote: > > > > > > > Nick, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been discussed before on this list many times. But > > > > > > > the short answer is that that is how the postgres server > > > > > > > handles queries. If you issue a query the server will return > > > > > > > the entire result. (try the same query in psql and you will > > > > > > > have the same problem). To work around this you can use > > > > > > > explicit cursors (see the DECLARE CURSOR, FETCH, and MOVE sql > > > > > > > commands for postgres). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > --Barry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nick Fankhauser wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm selecting a huge ResultSet from our database- about one > > > > > > > > million rows, with one of the fields being varchar(500). I > > > > > > > > get an out of memory error from java. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the whole ResultSet gets stashed in memory, this isn't > > > > > > > > really surprising, but I'm wondering why this happens (if it > > > > > > > > does), rather than a subset around the current record being > > > > > > > > cached and other rows being retrieved as needed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it turns out that there are good reasons for it to all be > > > > > > > > in memory, then my question is whether there is a better > > > > > > > > approach that people typically use in this situation. For > > > > > > > > now, I'm simply breaking up the select into smaller chunks, > > > > > > > > but that approach won't be satisfactory in the long run. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Nick > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >------------ - Nick Fankhauser nickf@ontko.com Phone > > > > > > > > 1.765.935.4283 Fax 1.765.962.9788 Ray Ontko & Co. > > > > > > > > Software Consulting Services http://www.ontko.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > > > > > > > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked > > > > > > > > our extensive FAQ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > > > > > > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched > > > > > > > our list archives? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > > > > > > > > > > >---------------------------(end of > > > > > > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all > > > > > > lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister > > > > > > YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > > > > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our > > > > > list archives? > > > > > > > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > > > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and > > > > unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of > > > broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through > > > Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to > > > majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the > > > mailing list cleanly > > > > -- > > Dror Matalon > > Zapatec Inc > > 1700 MLK Way > > Berkeley, CA 94709 > > http://www.zapatec.com > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
pgsql-jdbc by date: