From: | Kris Jurka <books(at)ejurka(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alex Martinoff <froggle2003(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Unix domain instead of TCP socket connections with |
Date: | 2003-09-08 08:18:31 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0309080412470.4807-100000@leary.csoft.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 7 Sep 2003, Alex Martinoff wrote:
> Using the org.postgresql.Driver JDBC driver is it possible to connect
> to Postgres using a unix domain socket instead of a TCP socket (so you
> don't have to start the postmaster with -i)? Using a TCP socket
> instead of a unix socket seems to slow down requests that return large
> result sets by a factor of 3 on the same machine. What's the point of
> all the extra CPU overhead if you're on the same machine? A
> high-volume server can really do without the extra overhead. Also, for
> security reasons it would be slightly nicer to run Postgres without -i
> just so there's one less port popping up when you port-scan.
Java does not provide an API for dealing with unix sockets. It might
be possible to create such an interface via JNI, but I doubt you'll get
a whole lot of interest from the JDBC driver developers as the postgresql
JDBC driver is a Type IV (pure java) driver.
Is this factor of 3 difference in time the difference from running psql
over unix sockets vs tcp, or is it the difference between a Java client
and psql? If it's the latter you're not really doing an apples to apples
comparison.
Kris Jurka
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marek Lewczuk | 2003-09-08 08:32:28 | plPGSQL bug in function creation |
Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-09-08 07:00:05 | Re: Reasonable Configuration |