Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data
От | Maciek Sakrejda |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BANLkTimgZ5Q-DTS1WMASgaPxYO3UWMSWLQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Incoming/Sent traffic data (Israel Ben Guilherme Fonseca <israel.bgf@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Incoming/Sent traffic data
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
> The postgre log: > > Python LOG: comando: select * from pessoa > Java LOG: executar <unnamed>: select * from pessoa > > (translation from portuguese to english) > comando -> command > executar -> execute Based on these log messages, it looks like this particular invocation in Python is using the simple query protocol [1], whereas the JDBC one is using the extended protocol [2] (with an unnamed statement and unnamed portal). As far as I can tell, the JDBC driver only uses the simple protocol for COPY. The extended query protocol is a little chattier, but I wouldn't expect a *huge* difference there. In any case, for what you're doing, I would strongly recommend looking at a tool like Wireshark or tcpdump to get more accurate results and more insight into what happens on the wire. E.g., I'm rather surprised that the Java bytes written is 5 times (!) lower than the Python version. Make sure you know what you're actually measuring. [1]: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/protocol-flow.html#AEN91249 [2]: http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/protocol-flow.html#PROTOCOL-FLOW-EXT-QUERY --- Maciek Sakrejda | System Architect | Truviso 1065 E. Hillsdale Blvd., Suite 215 Foster City, CA 94404 (650) 242-3500 Main www.truviso.com
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: