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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |