I've been putting a lot of thought into the value system since it would be creating a lot of relatively small objects. I can see malloc/free being hit hard by this mechanism in C++.
Question: in the case of multiple, in-memory db's with multiple threads accessing them, would it be useful to give each 'Session' or 'Database' its own Value object cache? Also, it seems to me (atleast in C++-land) that the 'Value' system to be a good candidate to put on a memory pool rather than going through new/delete. Any thoughts on that? -James On Apr 29, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Thomas Mueller wrote: > Hi, > >> I'm studying the Value object cache mechanism. I would appear to me that >> multiple databases in one process would be sharing the static Value object >> cache on multiple threads. What keeps access to this cache serialized? > > Nothing keeps it synchronized currently. A different thread will > either see the old value, null, or the new value. This shouldn't be a > problem. Updating references (pointers) in Java is not necessarily > done in order, but it is atomic (otherwise it would be a security > problem). > > Regards, > Thomas > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 > Database" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database?hl=en.
