[CC to the jdbc list]

"David Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [1  <text/plain; iso-8859-1 (quoted-printable)>]
> I'm using Postgresql 7.1beta4 with JDBC, and I was wondering if I should go to the 
>trouble of modifying my connection pool to manage two pools, once with 
>setAutoCommit(false) and the other with setAutoCommit(true).
> As it is, I turne off auto commit since in my transaction processing, I need to 
>control the commit/rollback.
> But, there are also a lot of cases where I'm doing a simple query and I don't need 
>transaction isolation, per se.  Is the performance better if I use auto-commit than 
>if I SELECT and do a commit() myself? And is there any benefit to doing a rollback on 
>a select instead of a commit, since nothing changed?
> Would there be a benefit with auto commit off if I had to do several different 
>SELECTs, since I'd only have to do one commit at the end instead of the autocommits 
>after each step?

I've been wondering the same thing myself, but haven't gotten around to
test performance implications of different configurations. If you do any
testing, it would be nice if you could share your data. 

Having two pools implies that you either have to use more backend processes
though(if you don't reduce the size of the pools). This may or may not be
an issue depending on the OS of your backend. 

You could of course also just create different checkout methods for the
same underlying pool, but that would be mostly for convenience and not
performance - although it could be OK if your updates are few compared to
your clean queries. 



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to