I'm saying that every sql insert is in an individual transaction. After an insert is completed, the transaction commits, and then the next transaction starts and the next insert is performed and committed. You'll see that the "sql:transaction" element wraps the "sql:update" call.
I'm only using JDK 1.4.2 at this point, but I have a profiler I can use to get an allocation report. I'll see what it shows me. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Libbrecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:27 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Users List > Subject: Re: [jelly] How to make a large Jelly-SQL script > more memory efficient? > > Oh, sorry, hadn't grasped, > > but then I doubt jelly can do anything... am I wrong or it is > normal for an SQL driver to keep an amount based in memory as > long as the transaction is not committed ? > > Do you see something jelly code that stores something ? > Or would it be something with tag-caching ??? I have a hard > time believing that. > > Would you have the time to output profiling and use hpjmeter (http:// > www.hp.com/products1/unix/java/hpjmeter/) to see what was allocated ? > > cheers > > paul > > > Le 10 juil. 07 à 01:18, Karr, David a écrit : > > > Each insert is a separate "call" to a separate "insert" tag that I > > defined in my dbutils. Each insert is in a separate transaction. > > > > So, for instance, here's my "insert" tag: > > > > <define:tag name="insert"> > > <sql:transaction dataSource="${ds}"> > > <j:catch var="ex"> > > <sql:update sql="insert into ${table} VALUES (${values})" > > var="upd"/> > > </j:catch> > > <j:if test="${ex != null}"> > > FAILED INSERT. <j:expr value="${ex}"/> > > <ant:fail message="Failed table insert" /> > > </j:if> > > </sql:transaction> > > </define:tag> > > > > I essentially call this about 18000 times with different > parameters. > > Watching the task manager, the memory usage slowly increases as it > > inserts rows. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Paul Libbrecht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:13 PM > >> To: Jakarta Commons Users List > >> Subject: Re: [jelly] How to make a large Jelly-SQL script > more memory > >> efficient? > >> > >> David, > >> > >> I do not see any other way than programmatically separating the > >> "lines" of the SQL query. Is this doable ? Like, if it's a > backup, it > >> probably has a chance that each query is a line, or ? > >> > >> If yes, then it should be pretty easy to use a > LineNumberReader and > >> feed each line as an SQL query... or do I mistake ? > >> > >> Alternatively, we could tweak the sql taglib to actually > read the SQL > >> script and not load it as a string but this would mean to > decompose > >> the lines in an appropriate way. I do not know how that could be > >> done. If you know of a generic way, let's open a jira > issue and work > >> on that, it'd be easy. > >> > >> thanks > >> > >> paul > >> > >> > >> Le 10 juil. 07 à 01:04, Karr, David a écrit : > >> > >>> I have a large Jelly-SQL script (about 3.8 mb) that just does SQL > >>> calls to insert rows into a database. Each row it inserts > >> is pretty > >>> small, but it inserts a lot of rows (relatively). It currently > >>> inserts about 18000 rows. What I'm finding is that the > >> script won't > >>> even run on Windows (2 gig process limit). It takes too > >> much memory. > >>> A previous version of the script only inserted about 11000 > >> rows, and > >>> it was able to run on Windows. The vast majority of the > script is > >>> generated by a Java app that processes a spreadsheet. > >>> > >>> While the script is running, I watch it in Task Manager, > >> and I see the > >>> memory very slowly increasing. It runs for quite a while. > >> It finally > >>> runs out of memory in the JVM and fails. > >>> > >>> Is there some strategy for building a script like this so > >> it is more > >>> memory-efficient? > >>> > >>> The script currently has a top-level "j:jelly" element, imports a > >>> utility package (some dbutils), and then imports the > >> generated portion > >>> of the script. > >>> > >>> I can temporarily work around this by building multiple top-level > >>> scripts that call separate pieces of the big script, but that's > >>> annoying. I'm also trying to get this set up on a Unix > >> system, to get > >>> a larger process size. > >>> > >>> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
