I'm using grails but I have lot's of stored procedures I'm trying to call from groovy.Sql.newInstance...
In all the examples I've found I never see anyone actually calling close on the connection. But when I tried running a bunch of methods within one response that each uses its own call to newInstance, then it got an error that there were too many connections. That leads me to believe that it isn't pooling the connections. That's a bummer. So do people create one connection and pass it around? Does grails and groovy close the connection at the end of the request?
I don't think that the connection is automatically closed after a request (which wouldn't be cool either), but you can manually close the connection used by the Sql instance:
Sql sql = Sql.newInstance("jdbc://...")
// some queries
sql.close()
See the JavaDoc.
If you would like to use pooled connections (which is surely a good idea), you should be able to create a pooled BasicDataSource (as Spring bean) and use the Sql(DataSource dataSource) constructor of Sql, rather than newInstance().
Related
I can't use built-in connection pooling of SQLite. It doesn't work with WPF apps. It is stated in the source code of SQLiteConnectionPool class.
I would like to implement my own connection pool for SQLite connections using Linq2DB DataConnection class. What is the best way to implement this?
I can see DataContext doesn't have constructor which accept DataConnection. Should roll my own implementation of IDataContext which uses ConnectionPool internally to get the connection?
If you want to control connection creation, I would recommend to subclass SQLiteDataProvider and override CreateConnectionInternal method to provide your own logic for new connection creation.
This will cover all cases when linq2db needs to create connection, not just DataConnection or DataContext calls.
PS: not sure which statement you mean, as I don't see any WPF or cannot notes in SQLiteConnectionPool's code.
I have a ASP.NET Web application. The application connects three different databases. So I have defined three connection string in web.config with different database name and credentials.From the application code I am pointing to the relevant connection string and firing stored procedures. Sometimes the procedures are hitting the wrong database. My guess is that as .NET cache the web.config, somehow the framework is returning the wrong connection string from cache and the application hitting the wrong database. I have checked the application code and found it is pointing to the correct connection database in all cases. Is this happening due to web.config chancing? I cannot identify the root cause of the problem. Please help.
If you are using EF to connect to the database, you have to close the scope of the context and then initialize a new context with the required connection string and then use that context to execute the SP.
I don't think this is an issue with the caching !
If there is only one DAL which connecting to different databases then it is a high chance of application mistake somewhere.
Possible solution, as we have no idea of how is you data access code looks like, is to create 3 different DAL and in each of them realize logic to work only with specified connection string.
For example create 3 different classes inherited from DbContext with different connection strings in constructors.
I have a ruby on rails application that takes a user http request, connects to the database, and sends back the response. To make the application faster, I would like to implement the db connection pool to avoid creating a new connection every time. I tried looking into the connection pool library, but did not fully grasp how to use it. Any help or pointers would be highly appreciated? Thanks.
ActiveRecord is the default ORM library that Rails uses and it automatically handles connection pooling for you so unless your using some other library you don't need to do anything.
Some of the pool options are configurable if you feel like you need to mess with them but I doubt you would http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/ConnectionAdapters/ConnectionPool.html
I'm using Powershell v2.0, question is in the title. I'm having to use the old school ADOB.Connection (not the OLEDB provider) to open a Jet DB file (.mdb). The reason is simple, the ADODB.Connection exposes properties I need access to that the OLEDB provider doesn't.
I'm opening the DB via ADOB.Connection to query for some information, and then I'm trying to compact the DB using JRO.JetEngine. The issue is that I keep getting an error about the Jet DB being locked.
I'm explicitly calling Close on it, and setting the variable to $null, and still experiencing that issue. My best guess is that ADODB.Connection is using connection pooling, and so is not releasing the resources the way it should be.
According to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/191572, the call to close() should be enough, but it doesn't seem to be working.
Is there a way for me to explicitly specify no connection pooling when creating ADODB.Connection objects?
In the link you provided, it is said that calling to close returns the connection to the pool:
2.What statement returns the connection to the pool?
2.Conn.Close
You might need to destroy/dispose the ADODB.Connection object, so that it is removed from the pool, or, if you are using OLE DB as the provider, configure the OLEDB Services, as explained here:
Enabling OLE DB Resource.
Pooling Resource pooling can be enabled in
several ways:
For an ADO-based consumer, by keeping one open instance of a
Connection object for each unique user and using the OLEDB_SERVICES
connection string attribute to enable or disable pooling. By default,
ADO attempts to use pooling, but if you do not keep at least one
instance of a Connection object open for each user, there will not be
a persistent pool available to your application. (However, Microsoft
Transaction Server keeps pools persistent as long as the connections
in them have not been released and have not eventually timed out.)
In a java web app, I need to call a remote soap service, and I'm trying to use a CXF 2.5.0-generated client. The soap service is provided by a particular ERP vendor, and its wsdl is monstrous, thousands of types, dozens of xsd imports, etc. wsdl2java generates the client ok, thanks to the -autoNameResolution flag. But at runtime it retrieves the remote wsdl twice, once when I create the service object, and again when I create a port object.
MyService_Service myService = new MyService_Service(giantWsdlUrl); // fetches giantWsdl
MyService myPort = myService.getMyServicePort(); // fetches giantWsdl again
Why is that? I can understand retrieving it when creating myService, you want to see that it matches the client I'm currently using, or let a runtime wsdl location dictate the endpoint address, etc. But I don't understand why asking for the port would reload everything it just went out on the wire for. Am I missing something?
Since this is in a web application, and I can't be sure that myPort is threadsafe, then I'd have to create a port for each thread, except that's way too slow, 6 to 8 seconds thanks to the monstrous wsdl. Or add my own pooling, create a bunch in advance, and do check-outs and check-ins. Yuck.
For the record, the JaxWsProxyFactoryBean creation route does not ever fetch the wsdl, and that's good for my situation. It still takes a long time on the first create(), then about a quarter second on subsequent create()s, and even that's less than desirable. And I dunno... it sorta feels like I'm under the hood hotwiring the thing rather than turning the key. :)
Well, you have actually answered the question yourself. Each time you invoke service.getPort() the WSDL is loaded from remote site and parsed. JaxWsProxyFactoryBean goes absolutely the same way, but once the proxy is obtained it is re-used for further invocations. That is why the 1st run is slow (because of "warming up"), but subsequent are fast.
And yes, JaxWsProxyFactoryBean is not thread-safe. Pooling client proxies is an option, but unfortunately will eat a lot of memory, as JAX-WS runtime model is not shared among client proxies; synchronization is perhaps better way to follow.