Menu
When using JDBC, I often come across constructs like
ResultSet rs = ps.executeQuery(); while (rs.next()) { int id = rs.getInt(1); // Some other actions } I asked myself (and authors of code too) why not to use labels for retrieving column values:
int id = rs.getInt("CUSTOMER_ID"); The best explanation I've heard is something concerning performance. But actually, does it make processing extremely fast? I don't believe so, though I have never performed measurements. Even if retrieving by label would be a bit slower, nevertheless, it provide better readability and flexibility, in my opinion.
So could someone give me good explanation of avoiding to retrieve column values by column index instead of column label? What are pros and cons of both approaches (maybe, concerning certain DBMS)?
400
The ResultSet interface provides getter methods ( getBoolean , getLong , and so on) for retrieving column values from the current row. Values can be retrieved using either the index number of the column or the name of the column. In general, using the column index will be more efficient. Columns are numbered from 1.
Invoke the Statement. executeQuery method to obtain the result table from the SELECT statement in a ResultSet object. In a loop, position the cursor using the next method, and retrieve data from each column of the current row of the ResultSet object using getXXX methods.
The wasNull() method of the ResultSet interface determines whether the last column read had a Null value. i.e. whenever you read the contents of a column of the ResultSet using the getter methods (getInt(), getString etc...) you can determine whether it (column) contains null values, using the wasNull() method.
The ResultSet interface declares getter methods (for example, getBoolean and getLong ) for retrieving column values from the current row. You can retrieve values using either the index number of the column or the alias or name of the column. The column index is usually more efficient.
Warning: I'm going to get bombastic here, because this drives me crazy.
99%* of the time, it's a ridiculous micro-optimization that people have some vague idea makes things 'better'. This completely ignores the fact that, unless you're in an extremely tight and busy loop over millions of SQL results all the time, which is hopefully rare, you'll never notice it. For everyone who's not doing that, the developer time cost of maintaing, updating, and fixing bugs in the column indexing are far greater than the incremental cost of hardware for your infinitesimally-worse-performing application.
Don't code optimizations like this in. Code for the person maintaining it. Then observe, measure, analyse, and optimize. Observe again, measure again, analyse again, and optimize again.
Optimization is pretty much the last step in development, not the first.
* Figure is made up.
77
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
