| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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 | 
| 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 |