db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Jue" <teamp...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: is it a good practice to have several connections to an embedded DB
Date Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:18:10 GMT
If you mean several different connections, this should be fine.  I'm
pretty sure that's how connection pooling works:  You have several
(lets say 20) connections that are pre-established, and then those get
handed out to other processes/services as needed, and then when those
processess/services "close" the connection, it really just releases it
back to the pool.  This is because setting up the initial connections
can be time consuming.

(Note for the following paragraph I do not have any connection pooling
explicitly set up, I'm still working on how to do that...I am using
Derby as an embedded DB, although the actual data lives at a location
on my web app server, but outside the scope of my web application,
i.e. C:\mydbdir\ .)

Now, with one of my programs, using a jdbc connection, I use the
"default" connection string, which I believe re-uses the existing
connection.  For instance, I have a couple Java stored procedures for
my Derby db, and sometimes one gets called from the other.  The
sub-procedure uses a default connection.  It sure looks like I'm
making a new connection, since I'm creating a new connection object,
but my understanding is that it somehow re-uses an existing
connection.

Dan



On 10/29/06, legolas wood <legolas.w@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
> thank you for reading my post
> is it a good practice to have several connections to an embedded DB ?
> what will happen when we open several connections to an embedded DB ?
>
> Thanks
>

Mime
View raw message