Okay, thanks alot for the quick answer! I was wondering, do you know how
much more efficient it could be done using the binary format you are
mentioning? I'm especially interested in decreasing the amount of memory
used to get large bytea values...
/Jesper
Oliver Jowett wrote:
>Jesper Thorhauge wrote:
>
>
>>Looking into the cvs
>>checkout from
>>22-05-2005, it really seems to me that getBinaryStream is nothing more
>>than a
>>getBytes ...??
>>
>>
>
>Correct. The current frontend/backend protocol doesn't really let us do
>this differently, at least for bytea columns. It could be made more
>memory-efficient (e.g. by using the binary result format rather than the
>current text format) but the driver still has to pull the entire column
>value across the wire at the time the row is returned.
>
>Another approach would be to write large column values to disk, but
>noone's written the code to do that yet; it also has some other problems
>such as: what if you are running in an environment where you don't have
>access to the disk?
>
>-O
>
>
