X-Original-To: pgsql-jdbc-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4613CD1B273 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:51:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19386-09 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 05:51:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail63.csoft.net (unknown [63.111.22.74]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 70E5ED1B20D for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:51:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 7606 invoked by uid 1112); 18 Jun 2004 05:51:19 -0000 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:51:19 -0500 (EST) From: Kris Jurka X-X-Sender: books@leary.csoft.net To: Jie Liang Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org, pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Prepare Statement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200406/85 X-Sequence-Number: 10287 On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Jie Liang wrote: > Hmm, intersting. > I am using jdk 1.3.1, and pg74.213.jdbc2.jar driver, I hope this bug > could be fixed in later version. > I suppose, but I'm going to put it pretty close to the bottom of my todo list because it still works even though it doesn't use a server prepared statement, and as I mentioned earlier the performance improvement if any will be minimal. Have you done any testing to show that you are even getting a performance gain? Kris Jurka