| From: | Peter Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Keith L(dot) Musser" <kmusser(at)idisys(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PGSQL-General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: JDBC Performance |
| Date: | 2000-10-02 11:05:21 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0010021203560.420-100000@maidast.demon.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Keith L. Musser wrote:
> I'm thinking caching byte arrays on a per-connection basis is the way to
> go.
>
> However, how much difference do you expect this to make? How many byte
> arrays to you allocate and destroy per SQL statement? And how big are
> the arrays? How much memory will they occupy per open connection?
>
> Will this really make a big difference?
It should. Everything that goes between JDBC and the backend is converted
into byte[] arrays, so it does occur, and occur often.
Peter
[snip]
--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk http://www.retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Driver http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres/
Java PDF Generator http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Mount | 2000-10-02 11:09:38 | Re: Re: JDBC Performance |
| Previous Message | Peter Mount | 2000-10-02 11:01:38 | Re: Re: JDBC Performance |