| From: | Haris Peco <snpe(at)snpe(dot)co(dot)yu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nic Ferrier <nferrier(at)tapsellferrier(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Barry Lind <blind(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: streaming result sets: progress |
| Date: | 2002-11-20 21:00:40 |
| Message-ID: | 200211202100.40955.snpe@snpe.co.yu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 08:08 pm, Nic Ferrier wrote:
> Haris Peco <snpe(at)snpe(dot)co(dot)yu> writes:
> > Yes, proccess increase with result from server and diferent is that
> > C request less memory - in C we can execute big qyery than Java
> > I can't believe that we must complete query in memory, but it is true
> > Excuse me
>
> If you look at the implementation of the libpq library you'll see
> that it's exactly the same as the java one: the query is done and
> then all the rows are retrieved and kept in memory.
>
> If you're able to do it in C it's because C has slightly more
> efficient memory handling than Java does. It must also mean that your
> machine has just too little memory for your Java app, if I were you
> I'd just buy some more RAM as a quick fix to your problem.
>
> Another alternative is to create 2 connections and use a cursor in
> one. Or to package your update operations as stored procs operating
> over the large results.
>
Hello Nic
yes, for me only alternative is cursor out of transaction and I think that it
is not big request.Oracle, db2, sql server, sybase, informix etc have this
Your work with cursor is great, but we have to it out of transaction
thanks
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2002-11-20 23:37:13 | Re: streaming result sets: progress |
| Previous Message | Nic Ferrier | 2002-11-20 20:08:55 | Re: streaming result sets: progress |