[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2911?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12523288
]
Bryan Pendleton commented on DERBY-2911:
----------------------------------------
Would a particular instantiation of the engine ever have more than
one buffer manager at a time? How (and why) would a user choose
one buffer manager implementation versus the other? Would it
be as simple as:
- if this is JDK 1.5+, we always unconditionally use the new one
- if this is JDK 1.4, we always unconditionally use the old one
Or is there some other reason that a user would want to override this?
> Implement a buffer manager using java.util.concurrent classes
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-2911
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2911
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Performance, Services
> Affects Versions: 10.4.0.0
> Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Assignee: Knut Anders Hatlen
> Priority: Minor
>
> There are indications that the buffer manager is a bottleneck for some types
> of multi-user load. For instance, Anders Morken wrote this in a comment on
> DERBY-1704: "With a separate table and index for each thread (to remove latch
> contention and lock waits from the equation) we (...) found that
> org.apache.derby.impl.services.cache.Clock.find()/release() caused about 5
> times more contention than the synchronization in LockSet.lockObject() and
> LockSet.unlock(). That might be an indicator of where to apply the next push".
> It would be interesting to see the scalability and performance of a buffer
> manager which exploits the concurrency utilities added in Java SE 5.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
