Do you have the same results if you exclude "details" field from your columns list ?
2012/12/21 John English <[email protected]> > On 20/12/2012 14:12, Jean-Yves Linet wrote: > >> Hi, >> May you could give more details about the structure of your table. >> > > The table looks like this: > > CREATE TABLE system_log ( > id INTEGER GENERATED ALWAYS AS IDENTITY, > time TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NULL, > username VARCHAR(15), > facility VARCHAR(15) NOT NULL, > event VARCHAR(31) NOT NULL, > module VARCHAR(15), > test VARCHAR(255), > details VARCHAR(32000), > CONSTRAINT systemlog_pk PRIMARY KEY (id) > ); > > I'm actually displaying a formatted view of the table: > > CREATE VIEW system_log_view AS > SELECT TimeFormat(time) AS t_time, > facility, > event, > details, > NameFormat(username) AS name, > username, > module, > test, > id AS time > FROM system_log; > > I had also suspected my formatting routines (TimeFormat, NameFormat), but > I removed them and used "time as t_time" and "username as name" in place of > the existing definitions of t_time and name. It made no noticeable > difference. > > > Anyway the response delay you have seams to be very slow compare with >> what I >> have with Derby. >> > > It's much slower than I would expect too! > > > I always read my resultset as forward only. >> Try to make a first request with select count(*) to have the number of >> rows. >> and then a second request with an order by on time field and use only >> next() method. >> > > Yes, I tried that too, and it also made no noticeable difference. > > Thanks, > -- > John English >
