Re: pl/Ruby, deprecating plPython and Core

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>> As there are two java procedural languages which are available for
>> postgreSQL Josh asked for an explanation as to their differences.
>> They are quite similar in that both of them run the function in a
>> java vm, and are pre-compiled. Neither attempt to compile the code.
>>
>> The biggest difference is how they connect to the java VM.
>>
>> PL/Java uses Java Native Interfaces (JNI) and does a direct call into
>> the java VM from the language handler.
>>
>> PL-J uses a network protocol to connect to a java VM.
>>
>>
>> There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
>>
>> + JNI is simpler, doesn't require a protocol, or an application
>> container to manage the User Defined Functions
>> - JNI requires that the vm runs on the server machine, and a separate
>> vm be instantiated for every connection that calls a function.
>> This is mitigated somewhat in java 1.5, by sharing data, however
>> this may or may not be a Sun only feature ( does anyone know );
>> either way a separate vm is required for each connection.
>> - startup time for the vm on the first call for the connection.
>> - Possible ( not as likely any more ) for the java VM to take the
>> server down.
>>
>> Using a network protocol such as a pl-j does has the following (
>> basically the opposite of the JNI (dis)advantages )
>>
>> + The java VM does not have to run on the server.
>> + Only one vm per server
>> - More complex, requires a micro kernel application server to manage
>> the UDF's currently http://loom.codehaus.org/
>>
>>
I think Dave miss a couple of important points.

1. Speed. One major reason for moving code from the middle tier down to
the database is that you want to execute the code close to the actual
persistence mechanisms in order to minimize network traffic and maximize
throughput.

2. A growing percentage of db-clients utilize some kind of connection
pool (an overwelming amount of the java clients certanly do), which
minimizes the problem with startup times.

3. Transaction visiblity. A function that in turn issues new SQL calls
must do that wihtin the scope of the caller transaction. A remote
process must hence call back into it's caller. PL/Java has its own JDBC
driver that interacts directly with SPI.

4. Isolation. Using separate VM's, instabilities in the VM can only
affect one single connecton. One VM can be debugged or monitored without
affecting the others. No data can be inadvertidely moved between
connections, etc.

I try to shed more light on the pros and cons here:
http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/pljava/genpage.php?jni_rationale

> That's a pretty good explanation and ought to be published more widely.
> It's almost a pity that we couldn't have one project with a server
> setting saying how we want it to run.
>
There are a couple of reasons that make me a bit reluctant to join the
projects:

PL/Java have no dependencies at all besides a Java Runtime Environment
(or GCJ). PL/J reqires a fair amount of other modules just to compile.

PL/Java is at release 1.1 and have a community of users. To my
knowledge, PL/J has not reached its first release yet.

PL/Java and PL/J use completely different approaches and share almost no
code. The code that we do share (public interfaces, manly for trigger
management) is published at the Maven repository at ibiblio.org.

I think it's better to keep the two projects separate. But I also think
that it is extremely important that we ensure that the user experience
is similar for both projects so that there's nothing to prevent a server
setting that decides which one to use provided both are present.

Kind regards,
Thomas Hallgren