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: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:32:28 -0500
- Message-id: <15055(dot)1143477148(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index