Re: Async client libraries - not worth it?

From: Rob Nikander <rob(dot)nikander(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Async client libraries - not worth it?
Date: 2019-06-17 11:35:02
Message-ID: 8E022FF4-1C5E-4373-B962-E1662AE722C6@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

> On Jun 17, 2019, at 1:12 PM, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> wrote:
>
> https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r17&hw=ph&test=db <https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r17&hw=ph&test=db>
>
> Seems to be worth it.
>
> Now it appears that ADBA is going to die on the vine, R2DBC and vertx seem to be pretty good

The “async” frameworks are faster, but I think they might be getting the performance gain not from the async DB API, but from the fact that they don’t block OS threads that are handling frontend HTTP requests. They may be using an async DB API to achieve that, but they *could* (I think) also use traditional JDBC and other general purpose concurrency tools from Java’s standard library. That way would be easier to reason about, in my opinion.

I may just have to write something both ways and wait to get real world experience with it to see how it goes.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tiemen Ruiten 2019-06-17 12:29:18 Re: checkpoints taking much longer than expected
Previous Message Dave Cramer 2019-06-17 10:12:32 Re: Async client libraries - not worth it?