Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: >> Mike Matrigali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Having said that it would be interesting if someone had time to >>> implement a higher performance latch implementation and plug it in >>> and see how much it helps. It would decrease the total time spent >>> in lock manager. >> >> Ok, a new experiment: I removed the calls to LockFactory.latchObject() >> and LockFactory.unlatch() in BasePage. Instead, I let BasePage check >> manually whether it was latched and use wait/notifyAll if it was. The >> patch (which is very simple) is attached. >> > > The original decision to use the lock manager for the latches was to > enable easier debugging of deadlocks during the early development of > the store code. A local latch implementation, like Knut Anders made, > does make a lot of sense, but does leave derby open to undetectable > deadlocks. Given the performance gains it probably is worth the risk, > especially since I don't think we've seen a problem with latch > ordering for many years.
Thanks to you all for your input! I have logged DERBY-2107 and will start working on a local latch implementation along the lines of the patch I sent out. -- Knut Anders
