One connection for each Thread??

I can't post all of my code, but here is the basic layout (well, the important stuff):

I've got a Threaded app, that calls a new instance of a class, basically, well, forever.

while (running)
{
    // poll a database table, check some values
    if (CONDITION CHECKS OUT)
    {
        new Test().start(); // <-- do some db transactions in here
    }
}

So...I could possibly have 10 or so Threads going at once...maybe more.

Now here is now I'm doing my connection to the database:

private static Connection conn = null;

public static Connection getConn()
{
    if (conn == null)
    {
        try
        {
            DriverManager.registerDriver(new oracle.jdbc.driver.OracleDriver());
            setConn(DriverManager.getConnection(dbUrl,dbUid,dbPwd));
        }
        catch(Exception e)
        {
            logger.error("Get Connection failed: " + e.getMessage());
        }
    }
    return conn;
}

public static void setConn(Connection conn)
{
    logger.debug("Setting new connection...");
    FlashClient.conn = conn;
}

Basically I get the connection ONE TIME, and keep it, so whenever the Thread touches the db, it uses the connection that I created above....

Now someone was telling me EACH THREAD needs to have it's own connection to do work.

TRUE OR FALSE???

And isn't that alot of overhead?  Opening a new connection, closing it...opening another one, closing it...blah blah blah??

What should I do???

I know nothing about Thread pooling..and I don't think that's an option for me.
LVL 2
arctanxAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
dbkrugerConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Sorry, you want the database pool, not the thread pool.
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/dbcp/
0
 
arctanxAuthor Commented:
Oh and I need ideas about closing, I guess technically it gets closed when the app terminates.
0
 
dbkrugerCommented:
Database connections are synchronous. While you are using one, it's busy. You do not want to arbitrarily keep increasing the number of active threads. Beyond a certain point, that just degrades the databases' performance (just when you need it most). What you want is a thread pool, a class that manages connections for you and reuses them when they com available.
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/threadpool/
0
Get your problem seen by more experts

Be seen. Boost your question’s priority for more expert views and faster solutions

 
dbkrugerCommented:
I see that you say at the end that you don't think thread pooling is for you. But it is, whether you like it or not. If you don't use someone else's thread pool, you'll be writing your own without (as you say) knowing anything about it. Use jakarta commons and be grateful it's there!
0
 
arctanxAuthor Commented:
I read the link, but how exactly would I do my DB connection?
0
 
astorerConnect With a Mentor Commented:
It depends on the amount of database access from your Threads.  A database connection pool is an overhead if each thread is going to rarely access the database.  But if you are accessing the database lots, then a DB connection pool is the way to go.

Note that having a single connection as you have it now is perfectly fine for low volume requests.  But you should be careful to synchronize access to the database really to prevent any mishaps (that synchronization may be looked after for you by the JDBC driver - it depends.  Better to synchronize it yourself just to be sure).


0
 
arctanxAuthor Commented:
Good answers, that gets me passed my sticking point.

Thanks.
0
 
dbkrugerCommented:
I believe astorer is incorrect. The overhead of a connection pool is negligable. You have a bunch of threads that have to share connections. If you don't need a lot of performance, and/or don't want to impact the server by logging in multiple times, then just allocate a DB pool of size 1, and you will only be servicing one at a time. You still need the synchronization to prevent multiple threads from trying to use the same connection at the same time, and the only thing writing it for  yourself will do is a) take more of your time and b) possibly get it wrong for a while, since synchronizing is always tricky stuff.  Whatever you wrote would be equivalent to the synchronization part of the DB pool.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.