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

Re: V3 protocol, batch statements and binary transfer

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Andrea Aime <andrea(dot)aime(at)aliceposta(dot)it>
Cc: PostgreSQL JDBC Mailing List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: V3 protocol, batch statements and binary transfer
Date: 2004-03-30 13:29:11
Message-ID: 1080653350.5402.92.camel@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

In general, yes, try to follow our style. Barry Lind wrote the initial
V3 Protocol, so bounce some ideas off the list. 

submit your patch as a context diff, to the list. Also make sure you are
using the code from the gborg project.

Also test cases are nice ;)

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 08:18, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Well, I have to do it in my spare time along with my regular Geotools2
> involvement, so it will require time. Is anyone willing to give directions
> or I just try to replicate the "look & feel" of the current code?
> Best regards
> Andrea Aime
> Dave Cramer wrote:
> > Andrea,
> > 
> > Feel free to chip in, if you can help with the V3 implementation your
> > patches would be greatly appreciated.
> > 
> > Dave
> > On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 03:44, Andrea Aime wrote:
> > 
> >>Hi jdbc driver hackers,
> >>my name's Andrea and I'm hitting some serious performance problem with the driver.
> >>At present I'm working with the Postgis GIS extension and I'm hitting very low
> >>performance during mass data insertion due to the driver limitations. Basically,
> >>I want to turn a 20 MB shapefile into a postgres table, but it has to be an import
> >>function on the client side (windows pc) so I can't just go to the command line and
> >>issue a copy. But that's just an example, in general I need to perform mass insert
> >>or updates in a transactional environment from a client, usually a Windows PC.
> >>
> >>As far as I can tell the low performance level is due to:
> >>a) lack of true support of batch statements as introduced by the V3 protocol, that 
> >>    makes the network latency bite me very badly while I'm inserting that 100000 rows 
> >>b) use of the text mode instead of the binary one, more than doubling the size of data
> >>    that are really transfered over the wire
> >>
> >>That makes the insertion of the above file take more than 2 minutes on a 100MB ethernet
> >>(oh, I have to pass thru 3 switches, so the latency is not that good). A
> >>reasonable transfer time for that amount of data should be less than 30 seconds IMHO.
> >>
> >>I'm wondering, why do you use the text mode instead of the more efficient binary one?
> >>Secondly, reading the e-mails on the archive it appears that you are short of time 
> >>for implementing the V3 protocol. Can I help somehow?
> >>
> >>Best regards
> >>Andrea Aime
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
> >>
> >>     
> >>
Dave Cramer
519 939 0336
ICQ # 14675561

In response to

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Jeff AmielDate: 2004-03-30 15:42:32
Subject: what is lslowing me down? JDBC or Postgresql itself?
Previous:From: Andrea AimeDate: 2004-03-30 13:18:41
Subject: Re: V3 protocol, batch statements and binary transfer

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group