Re: Re: [PATCHES] Re: [INTERFACES] Patch for JDBC timestamp problems

Quoting Joseph Shraibman <jks@selectacast.net>:

> Michael Stephenson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
> >
> > > > What was the conclusion of this discussion?  Do we leave it
> static?
> > >
> > > No, it cannot be static.
> >
> > As I see it we have three possible solutions to this problems.
> >
> > a) Just stop it being static, each PreparedStatement gets a new
> >    instantiation (I think this is what we've done for now).
> > b) static ThreadLocal, each Thread gets one instantiation.
>
> But I think some people are still using java 1.1.x and they don't have
> ThreadLocal.

True, except the 1.1 & 1.2 implementations are different packages, so you
simply don't do ThreadLocal in 1.1.x

> > c) An Object Pool (possibly using SoftReferences to stop memory
> bloat),
> >    slightly more difficult to code, a lot less instantiations, much
> >    better performance.
>
> But there are so many different ones used and you would have to make a
> pool for each one.
>
> >
> > If people agree that either 'b' or 'c' is a better solution, I'll go
> ahead
> > and implement it.
>
> I don't agree.  Part of java performance is memory usage.  Introducing
> memory pools means keeping objects around forever even if they are used
> once.  In tests I've done to see if using static variables are usful
> with string parsing I've found that gain is minimal.  Any call to
> postgress will be disk and network bound and trying to introduce a pool
> will only complicate things.
>
> --
> Joseph Shraibman
> jks@selectacast.net
> Increase signal to noise ratio.  http://www.targabot.com
>



--
Peter Mount peter@retep.org.uk
PostgreSQL JDBC Driver: http://www.retep.org.uk/postgres/
RetepPDF PDF library for Java: http://www.retep.org.uk/pdf/