Reduce the Default Pool Size for the Schema Generator #841 #842
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Paul Bastide <pbastide@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Bastide <pbastide@us.ibm.com>
| // Standard connection/thread pool size | ||
| public static final int DEFAULT_POOL_SIZE = 80; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I remember, when updateschema, we can only set the poolsize to 1, but we don't have to set it for the other operations. not sure if the other operations are using the pool or not, if they are using, will this change make the other operations slower?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
you can always chose to up to 80.
it may make them sequential, and avoid the resource contention from a higher number.
I personally want lower than 8, but 8 is what Lee and I thought made sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my point is that this change could make us have to set pool size for every other operations, the current setting only makes us have to set it for maybe only one operation ... but anyway, I'm fine with the change. we can always set the pool size as parameter if need to.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
or if the pool is only used by updateschema, then maybe we should make it even smaller... :) double checking the codes now ...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it's essentially used in the PoolConnectionProvider (underneath)
Signed-off-by: Paul Bastide <pbastide@us.ibm.com>
(LinuxForHealth#842) * Reduce the Default Pool Size for the Schema Generator LinuxForHealth#841 Signed-off-by: Paul Bastide <pbastide@us.ibm.com> * Reduce the Default Pool Size for the Schema Generator LinuxForHealth#841 Signed-off-by: Paul Bastide <pbastide@us.ibm.com> * Reduce the Default Pool Size for the Schema Generator LinuxForHealth#841 Signed-off-by: Paul Bastide <pbastide@us.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: ccorley <ccorley@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Paul Bastide pbastide@us.ibm.com