From: | "Michael Paesold" <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Felipe Schnack" <felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br>, "pgsql-jdbc" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: synchronized code |
Date: | 2003-01-08 18:53:32 |
Message-ID: | 01a201c2b747$3e7dfb80$3201a8c0@beeblebrox |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Felipe Schnack <felipes(at)ritterdosreis(dot)br> wrote:
> I'm quite worried with the amount of synch'd code in our jdbc driver
> code, we all know this is a very costly operation in Java.
> As far as I could see from the sources, the sole objective of these
> calls are to avoid two processes accessing the same shared StringBuffer
> we use. The strangest thing, IMHO, is that every time we use this
> buffer, we are calling setLength(0) or, in plain english, resetting this
> buffer. Is just me the paranoid or this isn't helping performance at
> all? As I understand java, object creating is a very cheap operation
> these days (in the old days it was slow), but synch'ing is VERY
> costly...
Sun claims that with Java 1.4, synchronization isn't *that* expensive
anymore. Anyway, object creation has improved, too. Which JVM are most
people using? Probably more people still use 1.3, especially with J2EE. Just
my $0.02.
Regards,
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Patric Bechtel | 2003-01-08 19:04:12 | Re: synchronized code [Viruschecked] |
Previous Message | Felipe Schnack | 2003-01-08 18:43:11 | synchronized code |