pgsql vs odbc and speed: clarification required
От | Glenn |
---|---|
Тема | pgsql vs odbc and speed: clarification required |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1040288897.10662.190.camel@thor.valhalla обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-novice |
Hi all I get the gist from all the reading that using odbc - specifically with access as a front end, but also generally, requires that apps be designed so that a minimum of data is moved across the network, presumably most data manipulation be done with passthrough queries or on small recordsets, BUT are these times below indicative of a problem? It takes me about 66 seconds using psql to select about 40,000 records from a slow (P150) remote machine and dump them localy to a 10Mb html file using psql -h server -d mydb <myqry.sql >myqry.html BUT.. From access it takes several hours. Using fetch and declare the first hundred seem available after several minutes (say 30 minutes), but to browse to the last record - is futile, no response after 6 hours - and if I understand the log file correctly having only select 10700 records. PgAdminII (which I understand relies on odbc) dies after say 30min with 'out of string space' error (presumably due to size of result) The reason I need to fetch 40K records is that it is used in an "insert into" statement - which If I execute from an access query is unusable (presumably) due to the speed of the select. Its quicker to use psql to create a text file, import it then export it across or insert into from the local access table. (using a passthrough takes about 1 minute). After all that, the question is should the odbc link be _this_ slow given the network is not the problem even though its only 10mb and the server is a dog -- i.e. if psql can do it, is odbc not doing its just slow or do I have a config/other problem? -- Glenn <glenn@pip.com.au>
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: