Re: synchronized code

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-jdbc by date

  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