Joe,
Care to elaborate how this will work with a source database that is
not MySQL?
Andrus
On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:07 PM, McDaniel, Joe R. wrote:
> For many databases, a LOAD is far faster than INSERT. For MySQL, for
> instance, one can do a LOAD REMOTE where the file being loaded is
> remote
> from the database even using JDBC. JDBC also allows for batching --
> that
> can help but the LOAD REMOTE approach is still better. (If you cannot
> do the remote for whatever reason, you may still have an option of
> using
> a shared drive for "local" access to both the database server and the
> "client.")
>
> Best,
>
> Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tore Halset [mailto:halse..vv.ntnu.no]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:48 AM
> To: cayenne-use..ncubator.apache.org
> Subject: raw dataport
>
> Hello.
>
> Anyone got dataport to work on huge databases with lots of rows and
> lots
> of blobs/clobs? I had problems porting over one of our databases
> yesterday. One of the tables has ~12M rows with clobs. Even though
> INSERT_BATCH_SIZE are 1000, it would just go on forever without
> committing the first 1000 rows. It would also gladly throw away
> OutOfMemoryExceptions..
>
> I ended up writing a new DataPort.processInsert that use the model to
> create plain jdbc sql statements. I also changed the partially commit
> algorithm to commit based on the number of bytes read/written since
> the
> previous commit instead of the number of rows.
>
> After the change, DataPort would port anything without problems :) The
> 17GB MS SQL Database got over to PostgreSQL on my old PowerBook in
> a few
> hours without any memory problems.
>
> So, what do you think? Am I using the current DataPort incorrectly?
> Should this feature replace the current dataport, be enabled with a
> raw-flag, or perhaps be availiable as a new ant task? It is at least
> useful for me :) After 1.2 of course.
>
> Regards,
> - Tore.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Jun 14 2006 - 09:43:37 EDT