Add java mention.
This commit is contained in:
parent
336ce4aa18
commit
711aa6ba2c
18
doc/FAQ
18
doc/FAQ
@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for PostgreSQL
|
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for PostgreSQL
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Last updated: Tue Aug 21 07:05:48 EDT 2001
|
Last updated: Tue Sep 4 01:14:28 EDT 2001
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Current maintainer: Bruce Momjian (pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
|
Current maintainer: Bruce Momjian (pgman@candle.pha.pa.us)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -92,6 +92,7 @@
|
|||||||
4.22) How do I create a column that will default to the current time?
|
4.22) How do I create a column that will default to the current time?
|
||||||
4.23) Why are my subqueries using IN so slow?
|
4.23) Why are my subqueries using IN so slow?
|
||||||
4.24) How do I perform an outer join?
|
4.24) How do I perform an outer join?
|
||||||
|
4.25) How do I perform queries using multiple databases?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Extending PostgreSQL
|
Extending PostgreSQL
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -559,9 +560,9 @@
|
|||||||
In PostgreSQL 6.5 and up, the default limit is 32 processes. You can
|
In PostgreSQL 6.5 and up, the default limit is 32 processes. You can
|
||||||
increase it by restarting the postmaster with a suitable -N value.
|
increase it by restarting the postmaster with a suitable -N value.
|
||||||
With the default configuration you can set -N as large as 1024. If you
|
With the default configuration you can set -N as large as 1024. If you
|
||||||
need more, increase MAXBACKENDS in include/pg_config.h and rebuild. You
|
need more, increase MAXBACKENDS in include/pg_config.h and rebuild.
|
||||||
can set the default value of -N at configuration time, if you like,
|
You can set the default value of -N at configuration time, if you
|
||||||
using configure's --with-maxbackends switch.
|
like, using configure's --with-maxbackends switch.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Note that if you make -N larger than 32, you must also increase -B
|
Note that if you make -N larger than 32, you must also increase -B
|
||||||
beyond its default of 64; -B must be at least twice -N, and probably
|
beyond its default of 64; -B must be at least twice -N, and probably
|
||||||
@ -982,6 +983,15 @@ SELECT *
|
|||||||
FROM tab1
|
FROM tab1
|
||||||
WHERE tab1.col1 NOT IN (SELECT tab2.col1 FROM tab2)
|
WHERE tab1.col1 NOT IN (SELECT tab2.col1 FROM tab2)
|
||||||
ORDER BY col1
|
ORDER BY col1
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
4.25) How do I perform queries using multiple databases?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
There is no way to query any database except the current one. Because
|
||||||
|
PostgreSQL loads database-specific system catalogs, it is uncertain
|
||||||
|
how a cross-database query should even behave.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Of course, a client can make simultaneous connections to different
|
||||||
|
databases and merge the information that way.
|
||||||
_________________________________________________________________
|
_________________________________________________________________
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Extending PostgreSQL
|
Extending PostgreSQL
|
||||||
|
@ -777,6 +777,131 @@ rjsjr
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||||
|
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
|
||||||
|
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
|
||||||
|
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
From pgsql-general-owner+M14597@postgresql.org Fri Aug 31 23:23:15 2001
|
||||||
|
Return-path: <pgsql-general-owner+M14597@postgresql.org>
|
||||||
|
Received: from server1.pgsql.org (server1.pgsql.org [64.39.15.238] (may be forged))
|
||||||
|
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f813NEF20222
|
||||||
|
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:23:14 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||||
|
Received: from postgresql.org (webmail.postgresql.org [216.126.85.28])
|
||||||
|
by server1.pgsql.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f813Njq38048;
|
||||||
|
Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:23:46 -0500 (CDT)
|
||||||
|
(envelope-from pgsql-general-owner+M14597@postgresql.org)
|
||||||
|
Received: from spider.pilosoft.com (p55-222.acedsl.com [160.79.55.222])
|
||||||
|
by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f812Yuf42942
|
||||||
|
for <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:35:04 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||||
|
(envelope-from alex@pilosoft.com)
|
||||||
|
Received: from localhost (alexmail@localhost)
|
||||||
|
by spider.pilosoft.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA20075;
|
||||||
|
Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:35:23 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||||
|
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:35:23 -0400 (EDT)
|
||||||
|
From: Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com>
|
||||||
|
To: Alex Knight <knight@phunc.com>
|
||||||
|
cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
|
||||||
|
Subject: [WAY OT] Re: [GENERAL] PL/java?
|
||||||
|
In-Reply-To: <MAEFKNDLAHNIFMAIEGHJCEKJCDAA.knight@phunc.com>
|
||||||
|
Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.10.10108312220140.19501-100000@spider.pilosoft.com>
|
||||||
|
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||||
|
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
|
||||||
|
Precedence: bulk
|
||||||
|
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
|
||||||
|
Status: OR
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Alex Knight wrote:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> It is generally wiser to split the webservers from the appservers;
|
||||||
|
> that will save on memory footprints from each respectively. That alone
|
||||||
|
> can give each machine a specific task to accomplish... generally more
|
||||||
|
> efficiently. But I would assume you know this.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
And it is wise to split database from middleware, and not try to saddle
|
||||||
|
PostgreSQL with requirements to support Java in-process. _IF_ java stored
|
||||||
|
procedures are implemented, it should be via something like a) oracle's
|
||||||
|
extproc (start a separate process to load the function) b) some of perl
|
||||||
|
java tools (they start a jdk in a separate process and communicate with it
|
||||||
|
using RMI).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Problem with java-pgsql integration is the threads model: Java really
|
||||||
|
really wants threads. Postgres doesn't do threads. So if most simple way
|
||||||
|
is attempted, you will incur overhead of starting up JVM for each backend
|
||||||
|
(a few seconds as opposed to milliseconds) and non-shared 30M of memory
|
||||||
|
per backend (as opposed to currently <3 megs of non-shared memory per
|
||||||
|
backend).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Using something like WebLogic, WebSphere, or Orion would be a wiser
|
||||||
|
> approach. For the company with the low budget, Orion is only something
|
||||||
|
> like $2000, and it has full J2EE support, including EJBs, etc. Try
|
||||||
|
> finding that kind of richness in Tomcat. Also, Orion takes up only
|
||||||
|
> 40-50mb at start, which is really fairly reasonable; ram is cheap
|
||||||
|
> anyways... a server that has to perform complicated algorithms to a
|
||||||
|
> large audience but has hardly any ram shouldn't be on the internet
|
||||||
|
> anyways; unless it can handle it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
_ONLY_ 40-50Mb?! Egads, I'm hard pressed to find any other piece of
|
||||||
|
(non-windows, non-java) software that takes 40-50M just to start up!
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
I worked with both CrapLogic and CrapSphere. Weblogic takes 20-60 seconds
|
||||||
|
to start up on P3-800, that, IMHO, is ridiculous.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It is not only issue of memory, its easy to throw memory at the problem,
|
||||||
|
its an issue of _incremental use_ of memory. As you scale
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> I feel that you don't really have enough experience with _java_ to
|
||||||
|
> judge it accurately. Frankly, the JVM is quite small nowadays,
|
||||||
|
> considering the amount of base classes that sit in memory much of the
|
||||||
|
> time. And the JVMs are really much faster these days. Java is still
|
||||||
|
> slow for 2 reasons: 1) Developers who don't optimize their code as
|
||||||
|
> they write it, 2) Bytecode interpretation is and probably never will
|
||||||
|
> be as fast as something like C/C++. But it certainly isn't the JVM
|
||||||
|
> itself slowing it down because of some "extended memory" that it lives
|
||||||
|
> in. Any reasonable server should have absolutely no problems if the
|
||||||
|
> jvm is implemented _properly_ (which many packages do not do), etc. If
|
||||||
|
> you're comparing Java to perl, yes, certainly it's a bit more of a
|
||||||
|
> beast, but perl quite simply can't keep up in speed and feature
|
||||||
|
> richness (when was the last time you secured your perl code in a
|
||||||
|
> redistributable fashion?)
|
||||||
|
_WHY_ the heck do all base classes need to be in memory all the time? Why
|
||||||
|
are they so huge? Libc is _far far_ smaller, and libstdc++ is tiny
|
||||||
|
compared to all the java standard library.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
You know what the answer to it is: Because they are ALL written in java,
|
||||||
|
as opposed to more sane languages like perl which handcode their "standard
|
||||||
|
libraries" or the most important pieces of them in C.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Perl is far faster than java in about any practical application I did.
|
||||||
|
Again, the issue is not speed of JVM versus PP (perl virtual machine), if
|
||||||
|
you did number crunching in perl and java, they would probably be at par.
|
||||||
|
Its an issue of standard libraries. They are _horribly slow_. Perl's
|
||||||
|
hashtables are a very nice piece of optimized C code. Java's hashtables
|
||||||
|
are written in Java. Need I say more? Java's AWT was a dog. Swing is a dog
|
||||||
|
and a half, because they reimplemented all the things that are commonly
|
||||||
|
done in C in Java.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> The only mistake the developers can make is poorly implementing the
|
||||||
|
> jvm, but most certainly not Java itself. I've been working on
|
||||||
|
> architecting and building enterprise level sites and applications for
|
||||||
|
> nearly 8 years now, and I've seen too many people try to implement
|
||||||
|
> perl cgi websites for enterprise sites and watch them choke and crawl
|
||||||
|
> to their knees because of poor system resource handling, lack of
|
||||||
|
> scalability, etc... I most certainly don't consider a single webserver
|
||||||
|
> with an appserver and tiny database to be enterprise level either (not
|
||||||
|
> that I'm inferring you said it was).
|
||||||
|
You cannot compare a perl CGI script and a J2EE server. Its like comparing
|
||||||
|
a webserver you wrote yourself vs apache! There are application servers
|
||||||
|
(or more closely, code libraries) for perl that match what J2EE provides.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
--
|
||||||
|
Alex Pilosov | http://www.acedsl.com/home.html
|
||||||
|
CTO - Acecape, Inc. | AceDSL:The best ADSL in the world
|
||||||
|
325 W 38 St. Suite 1005 | (Stealth Marketing Works! :)
|
||||||
|
New York, NY 10018 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||||
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
|
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
|
||||||
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
|
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
|
||||||
|
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user