db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouver...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: advice for client/server application
Date Thu, 23 Mar 2006 00:23:09 GMT
A common way client applications working with large result sets have 
handled the "too much memory" problem that I've seen is to send the 
results over in chunks.  Instead of sending all 120,000 records in one 
response, just send 100 or 1,000.  The client processes those 1,000 
records, throws them away, and get the next 1,000.

Would that work for you?


Ryan P Bobko wrote:
> Hi List,
> First of all, I can't say enough how impressed I've been with Derby. Every 
> time I've thought this embedded wouldn't be able to do something I expect 
> from a "full-blown" database (nested selects, correlated subqueries, stored 
> procedures, you name it), it's suprised me. I love it.
> This isn't strictly a Derby question, but I'm hoping for some advice or 
> suggestions with how to procede. I've been working on an application that is 
> a sort of half-database, half-FTP client/server setup. The protocol I've 
> implemented between the client and server lets the app do things like run 
> queries, but also move files around based on those results. Or insert rows 
> into the database based on where files have moved to. Files can be moved from 
> the server to client and vice versa.
> Things have been working just fine, except that when I run queries, the server 
> process does all the work and returns the results as a vector of string 
> arrays. It's never sat well with me--and as you can imagine--now that the 
> dataset is getting pretty big (120.000-4KB rows returned for some queries), 
> I'm using too much memory.
> What I'd like to do is get my jdbc connection object onto the client so I 
> don't have to "package" everything up when returning resultsets. The question 
> is how?  My first idea was to just use derby's network server and write the 
> file protocol separately, but I'd prefer to stick with just one socket if I 
> can. 
> Advice? Thanks for your time.
> ry

View raw message