Async client libraries - not worth it?
| От | Rob Nikander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Async client libraries - not worth it? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 73BC6656-5B14-4F6A-B0FE-5A1102AEF393@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответы |
Re: Async client libraries - not worth it?
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Hi,
I’m writing a new web app, and I’ve been experimenting with some async DB access libraries [1]. I also see some discussion online about a future Java standard to replace or supplement JDBC with an async API.
While I understand the benefits of async in some situations, it seems to me that these libraries are not going to give much performance benefit, given the architecture of a PostgreSQL server. (Nothing against PG; probably most RDBMSs are like this.)
I wonder if anyone else has looked at this and agrees, or not. ?
A client library with an async-style API may allow 100,000s of concurrent “operations”, but since the PG server itself doesn’t handle connections on that scale (and has no plans to, I assume?), the client library is really maintaining a queue of operations waiting for a connection pool. Maybe there is some performance benefit there, but the most important point - to free up the front end to handle many HTTP connections - can also happen by combining an operation queue with a synchronous API.
Rob
[1]: Mentioned here: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgadba/issues/17
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: