[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Berin,
> > >
> > > I just got to testing the new version of the pooling in
> > CVS. I got the same
> > > results as I did with my version, so that should be OK :)
> >
> > Faster or slower? I think the fact that we are not releasing
> > and reclaiming
> > locks or continual looping helps bring our efficiency up.
>
> I didn't look at the performance an sich. The fact that it's stable is more
> important to us ATM than the fact that it's fast. But it would only be
> logical that it's faster, since indeed there's less synchronizing overhead.
Fair enough. I am concerned with _both_.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
