On 5-Sep-07, at 1:27 PM, Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>>> Can't you use DBCP or some other open source statement cache
>>> implementation that's in a more mature state?
>>
>> Unfortunately, no. The benchmark is already out.
>>
>
> But that benchmark was run with a different caching implementation
> than the wrapper version, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.
> When Sun chose to use unpublished and unreviewed code for the
> benchmark they got themselves in a little bind and I'm not sure
> it's our job to bail them out by publishing and advertising code
> that we're not confident in. Heikki, Oliver, and myself did not
> believe the code used by Sun in the benchmark was correct in the
> general case so it was rejected for inclusion in the core driver.
So as I understand it the objection to the caching implementation is
that statement caching belongs in the app server ?
If this is the case then I would argue that having caching in the
appserver is a great idea for everyone using an appserver it does not
help the rest of the world that doesn't use an app server.
Is there a technical argument here ?
Dave
> Dave/Lazlo have since started a new implemention on pgfoundry, but
> that was never discussed with the JDBC list or submitted for
> inclusion.
>
> To satisfy the benchmark requirements, Sun should publish the code/
> driver actually used in the benchmark somewhere on Sun's website
> and, if honest, should recommend that people don't use it. From
> there we should try to gather some consensus on whether PG needs
> its own statement cache implementation and then rerun the
> benchmarks with it or some other implementation.
>
> Kris Jurka
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
