Re: Performance & PB
Hi Tino, thank you very much for your help - I will do that. Kind regards Ernst On Nov 9, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Tino Schöllhorn wrote: Hi, I think you can exactly do that. Just use a thread variable (see ThreadLocal) and store a PB in that. We are doing exactly that and it works great. You just have to close the PBs when the work of your thread is done, of course. Tino Ernst Temp wrote: Hello, I am developing an application that contains of two programs One that needs persistency. Here I use PersistenceBroker very successfully The second one does not need persistency at all, and performance is quite important. The program also relies heavily on cached data, but there is no need to synchronize the program with the database or with other threads. One can assume that the database does not change at all during the runtime of the program. And here comes my problem - I also used PersistenceBroker in this program in order to reuse code. Now, I found out through profiling, that the program spends about 40 % of its time in PersistenceBroker, mostly defaultBroker() and close(). I am accessing the DB heavily (reads only), and for every read I open a PB, read the needed data (that should come ot of the cache most of the time), then close the PB. This is quite expensive. As a solution, I could use only one PB for each thread open it at the start, leave it open, and then I would not need any opening and closing at all (except the first one for each thread). My questions are - can I do that and if so, is it wise? - are there other - better solutions? May be done through configuration of the properties files? Thank you very much for your help and kind regards, Ernst NB - I am using OJB v 1.0.0. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Performance & PB
Hello, I am developing an application that contains of two programs One that needs persistency. Here I use PersistenceBroker very successfully The second one does not need persistency at all, and performance is quite important. The program also relies heavily on cached data, but there is no need to synchronize the program with the database or with other threads. One can assume that the database does not change at all during the runtime of the program. And here comes my problem - I also used PersistenceBroker in this program in order to reuse code. Now, I found out through profiling, that the program spends about 40 % of its time in PersistenceBroker, mostly defaultBroker() and close(). I am accessing the DB heavily (reads only), and for every read I open a PB, read the needed data (that should come ot of the cache most of the time), then close the PB. This is quite expensive. As a solution, I could use only one PB for each thread open it at the start, leave it open, and then I would not need any opening and closing at all (except the first one for each thread). My questions are - can I do that and if so, is it wise? - are there other - better solutions? May be done through configuration of the properties files? Thank you very much for your help and kind regards, Ernst NB - I am using OJB v 1.0.0. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Performance & PB
Hi, I think you can exactly do that. Just use a thread variable (see ThreadLocal) and store a PB in that. We are doing exactly that and it works great. You just have to close the PBs when the work of your thread is done, of course. Tino Ernst Temp wrote: Hello, I am developing an application that contains of two programs One that needs persistency. Here I use PersistenceBroker very successfully The second one does not need persistency at all, and performance is quite important. The program also relies heavily on cached data, but there is no need to synchronize the program with the database or with other threads. One can assume that the database does not change at all during the runtime of the program. And here comes my problem - I also used PersistenceBroker in this program in order to reuse code. Now, I found out through profiling, that the program spends about 40 % of its time in PersistenceBroker, mostly defaultBroker() and close(). I am accessing the DB heavily (reads only), and for every read I open a PB, read the needed data (that should come ot of the cache most of the time), then close the PB. This is quite expensive. As a solution, I could use only one PB for each thread open it at the start, leave it open, and then I would not need any opening and closing at all (except the first one for each thread). My questions are - can I do that and if so, is it wise? - are there other - better solutions? May be done through configuration of the properties files? Thank you very much for your help and kind regards, Ernst NB - I am using OJB v 1.0.0. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Performance & PB
Hello, I am developing an application that contains of two programs One that needs persistency. Here I use PersistenceBroker very successfully The second one does not need persistency at all, and performance is quite important. The program also relies heavily on cached data, but there is no need to synchronize the program with the database or with other threads. One can assume that the database does not change at all during the runtime of the program. And here comes my problem - I also used PersistenceBroker in this program in order to reuse code. Now, I found out through profiling, that the program spends about 40 % of its time in PersistenceBroker, mostly defaultBroker() and close(). I am accessing the DB heavily (reads only), and for every read I open a PB, read the needed data (that should come ot of the cache most of the time), then close the PB. This is quite expensive. As a solution, I could use only one PB for each thread open it at the start, leave it open, and then I would not need any opening and closing at all (except the first one for each thread). My questions are - can I do that and if so, is it wise? - are there other - better solutions? May be done through configuration of the properties files? Thank you very much for your help and kind regards, Ernst NB - I am using OJB v 1.0.0. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
