Re: Re: JDBC Performance - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Gunnar R|nning
Subject Re: Re: JDBC Performance
Date
Msg-id x6aecnumkv.fsf@thor.candleweb.no
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: JDBC Performance  (Peter Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>)
Responses Re: Re: JDBC Performance  (Peter Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>)
List pgsql-general
Peter Mount <peter@retep.org.uk> writes:

>
> For JDBC2, I'm planning (may get done for 7.1) an alternate ResultSet
> class that uses cursors. This would speed things up as the entire
> resultset isn't received in one go. That's the biggest bottleneck of them
> all.
>

I would think this depends on the queries you execute. Is it any overhead on
the backend side related to retrieving results through the use of
cursors(ignoring the extra bytes sent) ?

If you only use a fragment of the data in the result set this method would
of course be faster, but in other situations I'm concerned that you will
only add overhead to the ResulSet.next() method(with familiy). But you
mentioned alternate implementation, so that would probably mean that the
user can choose the appropriate implementation for his application ?

Regards,

    Gunnar

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Gunnar R|nning
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: JDBC Performance
Next
From: "chris markiewicz"
Date:
Subject: more trouble with triggers/functions