[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2322?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17371515#comment-17371515
]
Zac commented on CALCITE-2322:
------------------------------
[~vladimirsitnikov] - you bring up a good point, however i feel we might be
able to solve this with clear documentation (as [~julianhyde] suggests). What
do you think of this:
[https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica/pull/148/files#diff-141a82cee99f7d96b403700fcfc1b03d0bd5d40ea29f925a5b4ed3544a6d7164R178-R180]
Does that help remove some of the ambiguity? If not, do you have suggestions
for improving that description?
> Add fetch size support to connection url and JDBC statement
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CALCITE-2322
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-2322
> Project: Calcite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: avatica, core
> Affects Versions: 1.11.0
> Reporter: Kevin Minder
> Priority: Major
> Time Spent: 2h 40m
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Currently the remote driver defaults to hard coded fetch size of 100 rows.
> When a connection is operating in HTTP mode having such a small fetch size
> can add enormous overhead. This is especially true if TLS connections are
> used and made worse if each connection flows throw multiple proxies.
> Consider that 100K rows returned 100 rows at a time will make 1K HTTP POST
> requests. One might say that nobody should ever do that but some tools like
> Spotfire may end up doing this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
