Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+ - Mailing list pgsql-jdbc
From | Dave Cramer |
---|---|
Subject | Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+ |
Date | |
Msg-id | CADK3HHLKSXaz8r7Xt__gvX2J_pOP3MzRsL38yD2jdh3oFpy4Wg@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+ (Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht@8kdata.com>) |
Responses |
Re: RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+
|
List | pgsql-jdbc |
On 03/04/17 20:24, Daniel Migowski wrote:Hallo,
in the name of performance, and that should be the main aspect for a database driver:
· Don’t use lambdas! They are useful in a GUI where a few milliseconds are no problem, but shouldn’t IMHO be used on the server. Inner classes are slower to load but execute faster!
· Don’t use streams when you can simply iterate over an array or a list. Unnecessary object creating just for the sake of readable code? Don’t do this in a database driver either!
· Optionals: Why create objects for nothing? I’d rather have an if-check for null instead garbage on the heap.
Thank you for your thoughts.
I have heard these objections sometimes. I more or less agree with some of them. But don't want to fall into premature optimization: do you have some numbers to back these claims? If there would be performance drawbacks for using these, are they comparable to other performance hits in the driver?
Regards,
Álvaro
Just my thoughts.
Regards,
Daniel Migowski
Von: pgsql-jdbc-owner@postgresql.
org [mailto:pgsql-jdbc-owner@ postgresql.org] Im Auftrag von Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
Gesendet: Montag, 3. April 2017 13:36
An: Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>
Cc: John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>; List <pgsql-jdbc@postgresql.org>
Betreff: Re: [JDBC] RFC: Make new versions of pgjdbc Java8+
On 03/04/17 13:05, Dave Cramer wrote:
On 2 April 2017 at 19:03, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht@8kdata.com> wrote:
On 03/04/17 00:56, John R Pierce wrote:On 4/2/2017 3:40 PM, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
- Java 6 EOLed 2/2013.
- Java 7 EOLed 4/2015.
- Java 8 was released 3 years ago, and brought significant improvements.
- Java 9 will be (may be) released this year.
isn't there a significant lag in version support by things like web services (j2ee, etc, as embedded in things like IBM WebSphere) ? j2ee 8 isn't even out yet. Pretty sure a whole lot of that space is still stuck back in Java 6 land.
Those are not related things. You can perfectly run J2EE 6 servers with Java 8 (and indeed, it is beneficial).
Álvaro
--
Álvaro Hernández Tortosa
-----------
<8K>data
Alvaro,
So why do you want to write in java 8 ?
Not a comprehensive or ordered list, but a few reasons:
- JDK comes with Base64 and cryptographic functions like PBKDF2 that are needed for SCRAM. In Java6 you either implement yourself or pull external dependencies.
- You can write conciser code (which improves significantly readability):
* Lambas: anonymous classes. Callback-heavy code turns becomes readable.
* Streams: unnecessary for loops and other goodies.
* Optional: unnecessary ifs.
* Since Java7: try-with-resources, 10_000 vs 10000 etc.
- Reading Javadoc doesn't hurt my eyes ^_^
- Time API, CompletableFuture.
- Default and static methods in interfaces!
Álvaro--Álvaro Hernández Tortosa-----------<8K>data-- Álvaro Hernández Tortosa ----------- <8K>data
postgresql-42.0.0.jre7.jar: 7837
postgresql-42.0.0.jre6.jar: 16587
postgresql-9.4.1212.jar: 78122
postgresql-9.4.1212.jre7.jar: 71585
postgresql-9.4.1212.jre6.jar: 34292
postgresql-9.4.1211.jar: 17128
postgresql-9.4.1211.jre7.jar: 805
postgresql-9.4.1211.jre6.jar: 2315
postgresql-9.4.1210.jar: 11435
postgresql-9.4.1210.jre7.jar: 363
postgresql-9.4.1210.jre6.jar: 680
postgresql-9.4.1209.jar: 18020
postgresql-9.4.1209.jre7.jar: 881
postgresql-9.4.1209.jre6.jar: 1210
postgresql-9.4.1208.jar: 6886
postgresql-9.4.1208.jre7.jar: 100792
postgresql-9.4.1208.jre6.jar: 4793
pgsql-jdbc by date: