db-ojb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Armin Waibel <arm...@apache.org>
Subject Re: PersistentField implementations, dramatic performance differences
Date Fri, 25 Jun 2004 13:33:36 GMT
Thomas Dudziak wrote:

> Armin Waibel wrote:
> 
>> I don't know in detail why it was so slow, but it depends on 
>> PFAutoProxyImpl and PFIntrospectorImpl, so it never can be faster than 
>> these implementations. Another problem is that for nested fields many 
>> new objects where created (e.g. internal PersistentFields).
> 
> 
> Well yes, but even for non-nested fields is nearly 20 times slower than 
> direct/introspector, so there has to be another problem.
>

For examples this class always call
AbstractPersistentField.computeField

I checked in my performance test. You can run it by your own to get more 
detailed information.

I currently rework my new implementations. But I would prefer to check 
in this stuff (remember my hard disk crash ;-)). We can let these 
classes undocumented and free to try till 1.0.1.

regards,
Armin


> Tom
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: ojb-dev-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org


Mime
View raw message