At 19:44 26/02/01 -0500, Joseph Shraibman wrote:
>Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >
> > Ingo Luetkebohle writes:
> >
> > > how good is concurrency supported in the JDBC driver? For example, if
> > > I have a small process with about 50 threads, some of them requesting
> > > large objects, will one JDBC connection suffice? If one thread is
> > > executing a large select which takes seconds to execute, will other
> > > threads be able to still get their results in time or do they have to
> > > wait?
> > >
> > > In general, are there concurrency limitations in the protocol
> > > PostgreSQL uses?
> >
> > See http://www.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/postgres/jdbc-thread.html
> >
>
>Someone might want to add that different threads can't use the same
>connection if they are using transaction blocks.
Actually this is a common missconception with the JDBC spec. I don't know
why they put the transaction stuff at the Connection level, but it means
that any JDBC connection can only have one transaction.
Perhaps something along those lines, or:
You cannot use different threads while using transactions. If your
application does a lot of queries but only a few updates, try to have the
updates done in their own Connections, and use the Connection pool for the
queries.
Peter
>--
>Joseph Shraibman
>jks@selectacast.net
>Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com
