On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 01:34, Rob Nikander <rob.nikander@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,I’m writing a new web app, and I’ve been experimenting with some async DB access libraries [1]. I also see some discussion online about a future Java standard to replace or supplement JDBC with an async API.While I understand the benefits of async in some situations, it seems to me that these libraries are not going to give much performance benefit, given the architecture of a PostgreSQL server. (Nothing against PG; probably most RDBMSs are like this.)I wonder if anyone else has looked at this and agrees, or not. ?A client library with an async-style API may allow 100,000s of concurrent “operations”, but since the PG server itself doesn’t handle connections on that scale (and has no plans to, I assume?), the client library is really maintaining a queue of operations waiting for a connection pool. Maybe there is some performance benefit there, but the most important point - to free up the front end to handle many HTTP connections - can also happen by combining an operation queue with a synchronous API.Rob
Seems to be worth it.
Now it appears that ADBA is going to die on the vine, R2DBC and vertx seem to be pretty good
