Re: Async client libraries - not worth it?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dave Cramer
Тема Re: Async client libraries - not worth it?
Дата
Msg-id CADK3HHKgoDHoMUF1yqSNaKdL96DLueGj7bBk1kAOWtt1ndVuwg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Async client libraries - not worth it?  (Rob Nikander <rob.nikander@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Async client libraries - not worth it?  (Rob Nikander <rob.nikander@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-general



On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 01:34, Rob Nikander <rob.nikander@gmail.com> wrote:
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



Seems to be worth it.

Now it appears that ADBA is going to die on the vine, R2DBC and vertx seem to be pretty good



В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: John Mikel
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: bug regclass::oid
Следующее
От: Rob Nikander
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Async client libraries - not worth it?