netsql wrote: >The most obvois is ... not to store data in memory and use the DB >engine: > Yes, I would love to do this. The problem is a mixture of security and requirements. First, the MS SQL Server is not at the same physical location of Oracle DB. It is access via the Internet using stunnel and a non-standard port. Just to make sure that no one can do any damage the database is in read-only mode. This elminates using DTS or T-SQL Stored Producedures to create transformed data on the fly. The problem on the Oracle side is that the MS SQL Server cannot be accessed without the DB-Library. Both of these are only work on Windows, this is a Unix/Linux shop. There are some Unix solutions such ODBC, but are very expensive. Also, The DBA would have had to do this solution, this was not option at this time due to other priorities. I found pretty cheap solution via JDBC. I did a quick select count(*) from a table. I got amazing results. I did a while (rs.next) and system.out.println(); of some the data. I still got great results. I knew Java, I don't know PL/SQL. I went with a Java solution. This may have been a mistake, but I still think it was the right thing to do with this project. >You should limit your result sets and create of sets in your result. > >So your app architecture should be improved to handle only a few >hudred or thosand records, and then dip and get more as you need it. >Tell me more about what are you trying to do? >If it is like Google, you can just retrieve(from 3000 to 5000) and >process a subset. > Hmm. Intresting the folks in the comp.lang.java.databases where suggesting even lower like 100 records. I think I can sort down to 3000 to 5000 via adding something on my where clause. >Ex: look at variations of bellow ofset syntax: >http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?sql-select.html > > I didn't follow how this could help. The data is in MS SQL Server. Can you point me to T-SQL syntax like this for MS SQL? I've done quite a bit with SQL Server I've never found anything like this mentioned. > >Consider using the Disconected Row Set (on SourceForge in basicPortal >and jxUtil) instead of CachedRowSet. Copying data is time consuming. > > I will look into this. > >So do not be afraid to lean on the db engine, they are quite fast and >the cache themself. > > I'm not. I would much rather do that. It just the issues mention above have painted me into a bit of a corner. Thanks, Jeff _______________________________________________ MVC-Programmers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netbean.net/mailman/listinfo/mvc-programmers
