| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Matthew Wakeling" <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Calling conventions |
| Date: | 2009-07-20 23:34:38 |
| Message-ID: | 29443.1248132878@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Oh, well, if you load all the data into Java's heap and are accessing
> it through HashMap or similar, I guess a factor of 100 is about right.
> I see the big difference as the fact that the Java implementation is
> dealing with everything already set up in RAM, versus needing to deal
> with a "disk image" format, even if it is cached.
Eliminating interprocess communication overhead might have something
to do with it, too ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Krade | 2009-07-21 00:25:02 | Re: Full text search with ORDER BY performance issue |
| Previous Message | Raji Sridar (raji) | 2009-07-20 22:33:04 | Help needed for reading postgres log : RE: Concurrency issue under very heay loads |