2014-09-15 19:34 GMT+02:00 cowwoc <cow...@bbs.darktech.org>: > On 15/09/2014 7:03 AM, Chris Travers wrote: > > I have a few questions on this, the answers of which may help answer your > question: > > 1. How well does having a server-side JVM work, resource-wise, when you > have a forked process model like PostgreSQL? Does having the additional > JVM's pose performance and competition for resources that lighter languages > would not? > > > I don't think this is really a concern when connection pooling is used > (otherwise you end up creating a new JVM per connection which is indeed > problematic). > > 2. What is your specific use case for a trigger in Java? > > > The main drivers are: > > 1. Not having to learn yet another language. I find the expressiveness > and readability of the other scripting languages very clunky compared to > Java. > > PLpgSQL is different, it is based on Ada language
> > 1. Ease of porting triggers across databases. The only thing that > really changes across databases is how triggers interact with input/output > parameters. The main body remains the same (thanks to JDBC). This is quasi > portability in the sense that the underlying SQL is itself quasi portable, > but I find it a much more compelling approach than having to rewrite the > triggers for each database type. > > any time plpgsql will be faster then Java probably due a type compatibility with Postgres and execution as inprocess There is a few task, that can be done in database, that will be faster in PL/Java than PL/pgSQL Regards Pavel > > > Gili >
