Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: Shared memory
- From: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
- To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- 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: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:27:09 +0200
- Message-id: <4428125D(dot)7000707(at)tada(dot)se>
Tom Lane wrote:
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 :-)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.
Regards, Thomas Hallgren
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Simon Riggs
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Tom Lane
- Re: Shared memory
- References:
- Shared memory
- From: Thomas Hallgren
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Martijn van Oosterhout
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Thomas Hallgren
- Re: Shared memory
- From: Tom Lane
- Shared memory
- Prev by Date: Re: Shared memory
- Next by Date: Re: Shared memory
- Previous by thread: Re: Shared memory
- Next by thread: Re: Shared memory
- Indexes: