From: | Arie Ozarov <aozarov(at)hi5(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance comparison to psql. |
Date: | 2008-02-05 23:09:07 |
Message-ID: | C3CE2C93.E79%aozarov@hi5.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Would it be better than to group inserts using standard statement (not
prepared - or does it really matter) this way:
insert into T values (set1), (set2),..,(setN); ?
Any reason for a select statement to be 3 times slower?
When is it planned to include the copy support in the official version?
Thanks!
Arie.
On 2/5/08 2:31 PM, "Kris Jurka" <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Arie Ozarov wrote:
>
>> I understand that JDBC has some overhead (object translation,..) but didn't
>> think the difference would be that big. Do this numbers look correct (any
>> optimization suggestion?)
>
> The real cost is the protocol level overhead of INSERT vs COPY. JDBC
> batch execution groups things together to reduce the number of network
> round trips, but it still has to send each insert as an individual request
> to the server.
>
>> Any performance improvement in postgresql-8.2-507.jdbc4.jar?
>>
>
> No.
>
>> Is the copy operation much more optimized than inserts (and if so when/will
>> the driver support it)?
>>
>
> Yes, copy is significantly faster than insert. If you'd like, construct a
> psql test case that does 100,000 individual inserts and you'll see it's
> not just a JDBC driver/libpq difference.
>
> Copy support is available using this patched driver, but it has not been
> integrated into the official version yet.
>
> http://kato.iki.fi/sw/db/postgresql/jdbc/copy/
>
> Kris Jurka
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-05 23:09:25 | Re: Performance comparison to psql. |
Previous Message | Kris Jurka | 2008-02-05 22:31:54 | Re: Performance comparison to psql. |