|
|
Vishwanath M <[hidden email]>: Oct 20 07:36PM +0530
Thanks Lukas i will add alias and that should solve the problem.
One more issue which am noticing while profiling the code is the difference
between the query execution time in DB and the actual time to fetch the
data through jooq .
Here is the sample
This is the actual time taken to fetch the results from the DB is 40 ms
(postgres)
But the profiler results from Jprofiler shows it took totally 80ms and
below is the snapshot
[image: Inline image 1]
Like you see above 79 secs is allocated to AbstractQuery.execute function ,
i cant understand why is it taking double the time . Can you help me ?
Regards,
vishwanath.M
|
Lukas Eder <[hidden email]>: Oct 20 12:02PM +0200
Hi Niclas,
Thanks for your detailed report. Indeed, this is a known limitation of the
current implementation and API. A feature request to improve this is on the
roadmap:
https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/5388
Specifically, the TransactionProvider should expose a ConnectionProvider,
which should be preferred by jOOQ's internals over the
Configuration.connectionProvider(), if available. All this inconvenience
should be rectified and re-specified with #5388.
In your actual implementation (that is not the simplified version you
posted here), what was your intent of wrapping the
ThreadLocalTransactionProvider specifically?
I cannot explain the difference between the dbcpDataSource and the
rawDataSource.
Hope this helps,
Lukas
|
Lukas Eder <[hidden email]>: Oct 20 12:08PM +0200
... in any case, I will further investigate this issue. Perhaps there's
something that can be fixed without implementing #5388. I've created an
issue for this:
https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/6732
|
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to [hidden email].
|
|
Locked
