Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Query grid

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Andreas Pflug" <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>,<edigeronimo(at)xtracards(dot)com>
Cc: "pgadmin-hackers" <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Query grid
Date: 2006-04-03 13:42:53
Message-ID: E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4011C99CB@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de] 
> Sent: 03 April 2006 14:22
> To: edigeronimo(at)xtracards(dot)com; Dave Page
> Cc: pgadmin-hackers
> Subject: Query grid
> 
> After several weeks I succeeded in reconnecting my win32 
> machine and have a look at pgadmin stuff again. I fired up 
> the query tool and my first impression was "can we have this 
> a little less ugly please?" when I saw those grey spaces. Is 
> the tool expected to display up to 10G of rows?

Well, those ugly grey spaces look identical to those in your View Data
code so any fix should be applied to both controls.

> I remember the comment how fast this should have become, so I 
> tried "SELECT * from pg_attribute" on a small db. I had 3614 rows in 
> 600+1400ms on a pre-grid version (ancient 700MHz Athlon), and 720 rows
> in 600+47000ms on the grid version, with 2894 rows 
> dropped!!!! I killed another attempt after 5 minutes.

Yes, it was much faster. See the benchmarks I posted to the list at
http://www.pgadmin.org/archives/pgadmin-hackers/2006-02/msg00155.php

[For a 100,000 row query]
52.277 Secs + 9.123 Secs (v1.5, with your patch)
52.276 Secs + 39.688 Secs (v1.4.1)

However, I am seeing dismal performance today, so something has got
borked at some point.

> IIRC, Edward mentioned he used the original wxGridTable 
> implementation because it worked good for him, and 
> consequently I didn't find any
> SetTable() call. As I mentioned earlier and , an inevitable 
> requirement is the usage of virtual row/col management, to 
> improve performance on larger resultsets. The new ctlSqlGrid 
> fails to implement it, and thus fails even on result sets 
> that can't really be called big.

Originally it was a virtual table, however it was found to be faster yet
to use the built in table. I wonder now however, if when I tested the
later version of the patch I was actually testing the wrong version.
Maybe that needs to be reimplemented.

> This implementation is clearly a bad regression. Please 
> revert ASAP and come back with a non-grid version (virtual 
> listbox or listview), I still fail to see any advantage of 
> wxGrid for this usage.

It has been proven to be significantly faster. I will not revert the
patch unless it proves impossible to fix the problem you are seeing,
which seems unlikely given the speedup which I saw on the earlier
versions. Reverting every patch because it is found not to be perfect
when first applied would be a very good way of ensuring that nothing
ever gets done.

Regards, Dave

Responses

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2006-04-03 13:50:00
Subject: Re: Query grid
Previous:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2006-04-03 13:21:37
Subject: Query grid

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group