On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> wrote: >> Marcos Almeida Azevedo <marcos.al.azev...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Synchronized methods in Java really makes programming life simpler. >>> But I think it is standard practice to avoid this if there is a >>> lighter alternative as synchronized methods are slow. Worse case I >>> used double checked locking. >> >> I have yet to see code whose performance suffers from too much locking. >> However, I have seen plenty of code that suffers from anomalies caused >> by incorrect locking. > > Uhh, I have seen *heaps* of code whose performance suffers from too > much locking. At the coarsest and least intelligent level, a database > program that couldn't handle concurrency at all, so I wrote an > application-level semaphore that stopped two people from running it at > once. You want to use that program? Ask the other guy to close it. > THAT is a performance problem. And there are plenty of narrower cases, > where it ends up being a transactions-per-second throughput limiter.
Is the name of that database program "Microsoft Access" perchance? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list