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

Peripheral Links

Header And Logo

PostgreSQL
| The world's most advanced open source database.

Site Navigation

Search for
  Advanced Search

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

Privacy Policy | PostgreSQL Archives hosted by Command Prompt, Inc. | Designed by tinysofa
Copyright © 1996 – 2008 PostgreSQL Global Development Group