Re: Shared memory

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PL/Java Development <Pljava-dev(at)gborg(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Shared memory
Date: 2006-03-27 16:32:28
Message-ID: 15055.1143477148@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pljava-dev

Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's only that much difference? Given all the other advantages of
>> separating the JVM from the backends, I'd say you should gladly pay
>> that price.
>>
> If I'm right, and the most common scenario is clients using connection pools, then it's very
> likely that you don't get any advantages at all. Paying for nothing with a 440% increase in
> calling time (at best) seems expensive :-)

You are focused too narrowly on a few performance numbers. In my mind
the primary advantage is that it will *work*. I do not actually believe
that you'll ever get the embedded-JVM approach to production-grade
reliability, because of the fundamental problems with threading, error
processing, etc.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-03-27 16:41:30 Re: Domains as Subtypes
Previous Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-03-27 16:27:09 Re: Shared memory

Browse pljava-dev by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-03-27 18:09:44 Re: Shared memory
Previous Message Thomas Hallgren 2006-03-27 16:27:09 Re: Shared memory