Re: Async client libraries - not worth it?

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 01:34, Rob Nikander <rob(dot)nikander(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I’m writing a new web app, and I’ve been experimenting with some async DB
> access libraries [1]. I also see some discussion online about a future Java
> standard to replace or supplement JDBC with an async API.
>
> While I understand the benefits of async in some situations, it seems to
> me that these libraries are not going to give much performance benefit,
> given the architecture of a PostgreSQL server. (Nothing against PG;
> probably most RDBMSs are like this.)
>
> I wonder if anyone else has looked at this and agrees, or not. ?
>
> A client library with an async-style API may allow 100,000s of concurrent
> “operations”, but since the PG server itself doesn’t handle connections on
> that scale (and has no plans to, I assume?), the client library is really
> maintaining a queue of operations waiting for a connection pool. Maybe
> there is some performance benefit there, but the most important point - to
> free up the front end to handle many HTTP connections - can also happen by
> combining an operation queue with a synchronous API.
>
> Rob
>
>
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

Dave Cramer

davec(at)postgresintl(dot)com
www.postgresintl.com