Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc

From Maciek Sakrejda
Subject Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data
Date
Msg-id BANLkTimgZ5Q-DTS1WMASgaPxYO3UWMSWLQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Incoming/Sent traffic data  (Israel Ben Guilherme Fonseca <israel.bgf@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data  (Israel Ben Guilherme Fonseca <israel.bgf@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-jdbc
> The postgre log:
>
> Python LOG:  comando: select * from pessoa
> Java LOG:  executar <unnamed>: select * from pessoa
>
> (translation from portuguese to english)
> comando -> command
> executar -> execute

Based on these log messages, it looks like this particular invocation
in Python is using the simple query protocol [1], whereas the JDBC one
is using the extended protocol [2] (with an unnamed statement and
unnamed portal). As far as I can tell, the JDBC driver only uses the
simple protocol for COPY. The extended query protocol is a little
chattier, but I wouldn't expect a *huge* difference there.

In any case, for what you're doing, I would strongly recommend looking
at a tool like Wireshark or tcpdump to get more accurate results and
more insight into what happens on the wire. E.g., I'm rather surprised
that the Java bytes written is 5 times (!) lower than the Python
version. Make sure you know what you're actually measuring.

[1]: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/protocol-flow.html#AEN91249
[2]: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/protocol-flow.html#PROTOCOL-FLOW-EXT-QUERY
---
Maciek Sakrejda | System Architect | Truviso

1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 215
Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 242-3500 Main
www.truviso.com

pgsql-jdbc by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data
Next
From: mephysto
Date:
Subject: Custom types and JDBC