Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data

From: Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda(at)truviso(dot)com>
To: Israel Ben Guilherme Fonseca <israel(dot)bgf(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data
Date: 2011-05-12 05:11:02
Message-ID: BANLkTimgZ5Q-DTS1WMASgaPxYO3UWMSWLQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc

> The postgre log:
>
> Python LOG: comando: select * from pessoa
> Java LOG: executar <unnamed>: select * from pessoa
>
> (translation from portuguese to english)
> comando -> command
> executar -> execute

Based on these log messages, it looks like this particular invocation
in Python is using the simple query protocol [1], whereas the JDBC one
is using the extended protocol [2] (with an unnamed statement and
unnamed portal). As far as I can tell, the JDBC driver only uses the
simple protocol for COPY. The extended query protocol is a little
chattier, but I wouldn't expect a *huge* difference there.

In any case, for what you're doing, I would strongly recommend looking
at a tool like Wireshark or tcpdump to get more accurate results and
more insight into what happens on the wire. E.g., I'm rather surprised
that the Java bytes written is 5 times (!) lower than the Python
version. Make sure you know what you're actually measuring.

[1]: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/protocol-flow.html#AEN91249
[2]: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/protocol-flow.html#PROTOCOL-FLOW-EXT-QUERY
---
Maciek Sakrejda | System Architect | Truviso

1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 215
Foster City, CA 94404
(650) 242-3500 Main
www.truviso.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mephysto 2011-05-12 07:29:58 Custom types and JDBC
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2011-05-12 03:12:48 Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data