Hi Christian, Thanks! You are right, I mean QueryProcessor.iter(). So, calling QueryProcessor.execute() AND after that calling QueryProcessor.iter/value() does the work twice? I.e., to get the result, I do not need to execute() the query, but instead directly call QueryProcessor.iter() or QueryProcessor.value()? 2013/10/11 Christian Grün <christian.gruen@gmail.com>

Hi Erdal,

execution times are generally highly dependent on the queries you are working with, but in the given case, you may get better performance by directly calling QueryProcessor.iter() instead of QueryProcessor.execute(). Btw, I’m not sure where to find the Result.iter() function? Do you refer to QueryProcessor.iter() ?

Christian ___________________________

2013/10/11 Erdal Karaca <erdal.karaca.de@gmail.com>:

...

Hi all, When using the QueryProcessor to execute a query, then, constructing an iterator from the Result object takes almost as long as the query execution itself. For example, if QueryProcessor.execute() consumes 100 ms, then Result.iter() takes an additional 75%. Same with Result.value().

Is there something I can boost up?

Thanks!

Erdal

_______________________________________________ BaseX-Talk mailing list BaseX-Talk@mailman.uni-konstanz.de https://mailman.uni-konstanz.de/mailman/listinfo/basex-talk

Yes, I tried, but couldn't believe it :-) Just thought of JDBC Connections, where you first execute a statement, then call the getResult() method. With directly calling QueryProcessor.value(), I have just halved the execution time of a query (10 sec to 5 sec, for example). Thanks! 2013/10/11 Christian Grün <christian.gruen@gmail.com>

...

So, calling QueryProcessor.execute() AND after that calling QueryProcessor.iter/value() does the work twice? I.e., to get the result, I do not need to execute() the query, but instead directly call QueryProcessor.iter() or QueryProcessor.value()?

Well, yes… Just try ;)