That's what's interesting about this to me. Using psql, piping the results
to a file, it is less than a second, and the CPU time goes to 50% idle. The
file that I piped to ends up about 3.5MB's. Jdbc is about 90 seconds, and 0%
idle. I've put trace statements in, so I'm pretty sure that to return from
the executeQuery(sql); method is about 90 seconds. If you can't reproduce
it, then maybe I could send you the table that I query, or maybe you could
send me a table that you query of similiar size (~1200 rows, 25 columns, no
indexes, most columns are varchar() or float8() ), that it performs well on.
>Hmmm, this is interesting. Does the cpu time match when the same queries
>are run through PSQL?
>Peter T Mount, IT Section
>Anything I write here are my own views, and cannot be taken as the
>official words of Maidstone Borough Council
>From: Postgres mailing lists [mailto:postgres(at)weblynk(dot)com]
>Sent: Sunday, March 21, 1999 7:11 PM
>Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC Query performance
>>At 11:07 +0200 on 18/03/1999, Peter Mount wrote:
>>> The delay is because the driver currently retrieves the entire result
>>> into a Vector() before returning the ResultSet.
>>Couldn't it also be because of Java's usage of network sockets compared
>>psql's use of unix sockets?
>You know, I also noticed that it is the postgres back-end process which
>using all the CPU time during the query. Doesn't sound like Vector
>operations to me, which should cause the java process to eat all the CPU
pgsql-interfaces by date
|Next:||From: José Soares||Date: 1999-03-23 15:05:58|
|Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] PostGreSQL --> Oracle Convertor|
|Previous:||From: Peter T Mount||Date: 1999-03-23 06:48:09|
|Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC Query performance|