Re: streaming result sets: progress

Well, considering that cursors *ONLY* operate within transactions then
this is a huge request.

Dave
On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 16:00, Haris Peco wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
--
Dave Cramer <Dave(at)micro-automation(dot)net>