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
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 |