By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
449,278 Members | 1,142 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 449,278 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

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

P: n/a
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
Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply


P: n/a

"Howie Goodell" <ho***********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20**************************@posting.google.c om...
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
Jul 19 '05 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.