Mailing-List: contact ojb-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "OJB Developers List" <ojb-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <40DC2927.5060004@first.fhg.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:31:19 +0200
From: Thomas Dudziak <tomdz@first.fhg.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: OJB Developers List <ojb-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: PersistentField implementations, dramatic performance differences
References: <40DC2143.8020506@apache.org> <40DC21DA.7070803@first.fhg.de>
 <40DC237D.2010706@apache.org> <40DC2458.4090804@first.fhg.de>
 <40DC26AB.70309@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <40DC26AB.70309@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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).
>
> Difficult to figure out what's the main problem. That's the reason why 
> I start rewriting the implementations.

I was wondering: for the test case that you just checked in, is the 
FieldDescriptor instance created once prior to the 300000 runs, or is it 
created anew in each run? The latter case would explain the bad 
performance of the auto proxy impl because it determines the actual impl 
to use when created.

Tom


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