Optimising Oracle 9i for million-record JDBC read-only access

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Howie Goodell

    Optimising Oracle 9i for million-record JDBC read-only access

    Hello --

    I am trying to optimise a JDBC connection and an Oracle 9i database
    for reading millions of records at a time to a 1 Gig PC running Win2K
    or XP. Two questions:

    1. Does anyone have suggestions for optimising an Oracle 9i server
    (Enterprise Edition, Release 2) for networked read-only JDBC access
    with large return sets? With default settings MySQL reads 1M records
    2.5 times faster than Oracle even on its first, non-cached execution.

    2. Unrelated question: is there a way to read a text field via JDBC
    without creating a String object? The memory and GC overheads of
    creating millions of objects are becoming a problem, too.

    Thanks much!
    Howie Goodell
  • Jim Kennedy

    #2
    Re: Optimising Oracle 9i for million-record JDBC read-only access


    "Howie Goodell" <howie.goodell@ gmail.comwrote in message
    news:20bf32b7.0 407131149.4e164 369@posting.goo gle.com...
    Hello --
    >
    I am trying to optimise a JDBC connection and an Oracle 9i database
    for reading millions of records at a time to a 1 Gig PC running Win2K
    or XP. Two questions:
    >
    1. Does anyone have suggestions for optimising an Oracle 9i server
    (Enterprise Edition, Release 2) for networked read-only JDBC access
    with large return sets? With default settings MySQL reads 1M records
    2.5 times faster than Oracle even on its first, non-cached execution.
    >
    2. Unrelated question: is there a way to read a text field via JDBC
    without creating a String object? The memory and GC overheads of
    creating millions of objects are becoming a problem, too.
    >
    Thanks much!
    Howie Goodell
    Try increasing the array fetch or batch fetch to like 100 or so. Also use
    prepared statements and reexecute. You can use the oci driver and it should
    be faster.
    Jim


    Comment

    Working...