Received: from trends.net (root@clio.trends.ca [209.47.148.2]) by hub.org (8.9.2/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA04469 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 1999 03:50:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from postgres@weblynk.com) Received: from weblynk.com ([209.85.101.4]) by trends.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA01765 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:53:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from doggy (pool255-cvx.ds39-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net [209.179.47.155]) by weblynk.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA22349 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:56:56 -0800 Message-ID: <001001be73ce$8dcde210$64ba01cc@earthlink.net> From: "Postgres mailing lists" To: Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] JDBC Query performance Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:10:57 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.0810.800 >At 11:07 +0200 on 18/03/1999, Peter Mount wrote: > > >> >> The delay is because the driver currently retrieves the entire result >> into a Vector() before returning the ResultSet. > >Couldn't it also be because of Java's usage of network sockets compared to >psql's use of unix sockets? > You know, I also noticed that it is the postgres back-end process which is using all the CPU time during the query. Doesn't sound like Vector operations to me, which should cause the java process to eat all the CPU time. Rich.