Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-03-27 16:41:30
Subject: Re: Domains as Subtypes
Previous:From: Thomas HallgrenDate: 2006-03-27 16:27:09
Subject: Re: Shared memory

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group