![ubuntu install gosync ubuntu install gosync](https://fullstackfront.com/assets/post/ubuntu-nice-look-install1.png)
First, if I’m not sharing any state, than I can write code that is completely void of synchronization primitives because I have chosen a shared-nothing architecture. I like to choose my synchronization primitives carefully before I even think about writing code and you should too.
![ubuntu install gosync ubuntu install gosync](https://www.tecmint.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Install-Appgrid-in-Ubuntu-16.04.png)
Which tools you use are beyond the scope of this article but let’s go back to the builtin map when faced with concurrent updates of this data structure.
UBUNTU INSTALL GOSYNC FREE
You’ve got channels, you’ve got mutexes, you’ve got r/w mutexes and you’ve got atomic operations.Īnd, depending on your use case it’s not uncommon to reach for one or two of these constructs so that you can enjoy production code that is free of data-races. This is why the standard library provides a few tools at your disposal in the form of synchronization primitives. It’s not thread-safe (or concurrent safe) when reading to/writing to happens with more than one goroutine. In fact if you’re able to leverage a builtin map without the use of locking semantics you may well already have a winner in your hands.Īnd I bring up locking for a reason: The builtin map has a dirty little secret that most of you should know by now. The next thing on the list that you may lose is… performance? In many cases, the existing implementation of the builtin map is well performant enough and will many times beat the sync.Map implementation hands down in sheer operations per time-unit. Range does not necessarily correspond to any consistent snapshot of the Map’s contents Let’s not trade type safety and a simple generic data structure for one that is not.Īlso, if you read the docs on the iteration functionality of the new sync.Map you’ll notice that some additional guarantees are thrown out the window in terms of the observed snapshot that you’ll see as you Range over the collection of data. I don’t know about you but with the limited set of data structures provided in the Go standard library, the obvious choice for anything key/value based is your basic map builtin. A few guarantees go out the window when you use the hot new concurrent implementation.įirst you lose the obvious one which is type safety. If you reach for the new sync.Map construct without having first identified and measured that you’ve got contention with the existing map implementation you might be trading some headaches and pain for more headaches and pain. First of all - why does this even exist and when should you use it? Unfortunately the answer is: you really should not use it unless a.) you’ve identified a bottleneck in your application with the pre-existing and type-safe map and b.) your use case matches the exact use case of which the new sync.Map was designed for. Go 1.9 is out now and I was eager to get my hands on the new sync.Map container that exists in the sync package. A learning and exploratory analysis of the new sync.Map type in Go 1.9.