X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E5B9DC83D for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:27:13 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00305-07 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:27:12 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mailrelay1.bredband.net (mailrelay1.bredband.net [195.54.107.83]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6429DC8DF for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:27:11 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (1-1-2-48a.rny.sth.bostream.se [82.182.133.12]) by mailrelay1.bredband.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB3A508102; Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:29:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4428125D.7000707@tada.se> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:27:09 +0200 From: Thomas Hallgren User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout , PostgreSQL-development , PL/Java Development Subject: Re: Shared memory References: <4423CF32.3060406@tada.se> <20060324125851.GC8718@svana.org> <4427A8F1.3020009@tada.se> <14559.1143473507@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <14559.1143473507@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.106 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106] X-Spam-Score: 0.106 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/1151 X-Sequence-Number: 81549 Tom Lane wrote: > It's only that much difference? Given all the other advantages of > separating the JVM from the backends, I'd say you should gladly pay > that price. > If I'm right, and the most common scenario is clients using connection pools, then it's very likely that you don't get any advantages at all. Paying for nothing with a 440% increase in calling time (at best) seems expensive :-) Regards, Thomas Hallgren