>On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, John Frailey wrote:
>
>> We are trying to port our pure java e-commerce software to postgres. I
>> am using database pooling with jdbc during an init stage of the main
>> servlet that dishes out the html content to the users. (we must use
>> pooling, because it takes too darn long to get a connection, and we
>> need our web pages to respond quickly)
>>
>
Very well written db pool class can be obtained at
http://javaexchange.com/
has been very reliable for us... does what it needs too...
>I've always wondered about connection pooling (yes, I understand you don't
>want to reconnect on every query. I know I don't) Wouldn't it work just as
>well using a single connection to the database? Assuming the database
>connection is written to handle multiple requests (ie being thread safe).
>
I suppose I am trying to get out of handling concurrency issues with
multiple threads. I went down this road with a pilot OODBMS (psepro not to
mention any names) and spent too much time (and code) worrying about
concurrency, and not enough time concentrating on buss. logic, and fell
behind on my projects. (what I heard from mgmt anyway!) So trying to take
advantage of a RDBMS's ability of handling multi-user. We usually have as
many as 50-100 threads running all times...
>Or is it a matter of security/transactions that says each user has to have
>his own connection?
>
>
We are using transactions when they commit to a purchase or subscription.
>> My problem is that we use multiple databases per web request. With
>> other db's, I can make a connection to a central db, and then select
>> .. from <database>.<table> and make sure permissions are such, that I
>> can hop databases with just one connection I get from the pool.
>>
>
>Usually (as far as I know) "select from database.table" is not different
>databases but different schemas, all handled by the same database.
>
I like this option... do you know if there is a hard limit with how many
objects (schema.tables) I can have in a single database. I wouldn't think it
would be a reach to say we will have over 1000 or more in the near future if
we took this approach...
>For example in DB2 or Oracle
>"select from urban.small_table"
> and
>"select from john.small_table"
>
>can all be in the database 'test', with urban.small_table and
>john.small_table being different tables.
>
>If you can switch from the 'urban' schema to the 'john' schema I don't
>know (I think so). If postgres has schemas ... I'm not sure, but the JDBC
>driver suggests it doesn't.
>
>But schemas are just a namespace thing (or?), if it is access rights you
>want they could be implemented by using different tables with different
>rights (urban_some_table and john_some_table), no?
>
>I'm sure I'm missing some great finesse here, so please enlighten me :)
>
>/Urban
>
>---
>Urban Widmark urban@svenskatest.se
>Svenska Test AB +46 90 71 71 23
>
>
>
