Re: Performance problem with timestamps in result sets

From: "mikael-aronsson" <mikael-aronsson(at)telia(dot)com>
To: "Thomas Dudziak" <tomdzk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance problem with timestamps in result sets
Date: 2006-03-08 15:08:13
Message-ID: 006201c642c2$1f17a610$c29c143e@w128mtec
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

I do not think there is much more to do, the timestamp is just a 64 bit
integer and you say an int takes 570ms/10920 calls and a timestamp takes
7130ms/8190 calls, this is about twice as much to get twice as much data.

Mikael

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Dudziak" <tomdzk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at>
Cc: <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Performance problem with timestamps in result sets

On 3/8/06, Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> wrote:

> This should be 1 ms per getTimestamp call, shouldn't it? The time is the
> aggregate time for ~8000 calls. That is still rather slow, yeah, but it is
> so with profiling.

Yep, but as I said, the others are much faster. E.g. getString takes
140ms for 5460 calls, and getInt 570ms for 10920 calls, so its
probably not so much the profiler.
Also, I was merely asking whether there is something that could be
done to bring getTimestamp at least in the same region.

cheers,
Tom

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Jowett 2006-03-08 15:11:26 Re: Performance problem with timestamps in result sets
Previous Message Thomas Dudziak 2006-03-08 15:04:56 Re: Performance problem with timestamps in result sets