On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> That seems to be a documentation bug.
> I tried it, and it definitely does not work (or I am missing something).
Apparently I am the one who is missing something. :-)
> Their release notes at:
> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-
Robert Klemme, 07.05.2012 15:44:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/sql-developer/overview/index.html
SQL Developer does not support PostgreSQL
Last time I checked (quite a while ago) you could use arbitrary JDBC
drivers. There's also
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E25259_01/appdev
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> Robert Klemme, 07.05.2012 14:03:
>>
>> Alternative tools for JDBC tests:
>>
>> http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/sql-developer/overview/index.html
>
> SQL Developer does not support PostgreSQL
Last time I checked (quite a wh
Robert Klemme, 07.05.2012 14:03:
Alternative tools for JDBC tests:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/developer-tools/sql-developer/overview/index.html
SQL Developer does not support PostgreSQL
This page:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Community_Guide_to_PostgreSQL_GUI_Tools
also lists
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Ronald Hahn, DOCFOCUS INC.
> wrote:
>> After some testing using wiershark (poor mans profiler) to see what was
>> going on with the network I found that it was the tools I've been using.
>> Both Aqua and PGad
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Ronald Hahn, DOCFOCUS INC.
wrote:
> After some testing using wiershark (poor mans profiler) to see what was
> going on with the network I found that it was the tools I've been using.
> Both Aqua and PGadminIII have a large overhead per column to get the meta
> data
After some testing using wiershark (poor mans profiler) to see what was
going on with the network I found that it was the tools I've been using.
Both Aqua and PGadminIII have a large overhead per column to get the
meta data. MSSQL sends that data upfront so the impact isn't as bad. I'm
not sure
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Ronald Hahn, DOCFOCUS INC.
wrote:
> Hi,
> We have recently switch our product from MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql
> 9.0.7. We have tuned the searches and indexes so that they are very close
> (often better) to what sql2k was giving us. We are noticing some
> differ
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Ronald Hahn, DOCFOCUS INC.
wrote:
> We went to the SQL2k server (On the same hardware) and ran the selects
> again. When bringing back on an int32 PG was faster with the fetch and the
> row coming back in 1-5 ms and SQL2k coming back in 500-700 ms. This tells me
>
Hi,
We have recently switch our product from MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql
9.0.7. We have tuned the searches and indexes so that they are very
close (often better) to what sql2k was giving us. We are noticing some
differences now in the time it takes for the result set to make it back
to the
10 matches
Mail list logo