Mailing-List: contact torque-user-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Apache Torque Users List" <torque-user@db.apache.org>
From: "Iwan" <java@i-ware.net>
To: "'Apache Torque Users List'" <torque-user@db.apache.org>
Subject: [PERFORMANCE] Torque vs. Hibernate
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:47:45 +0100
Message-ID: <007901c3bb57$edbef710$0a02a8c0@ittitans.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <90B3A0967470D44CB8FDE74907512328F1CDD9@av1s008.at-work.local>

Hi,

Does anybody have any experience, (or results), with performance tests
comparing Torque and Hibernate? We're currently using Hibernate, =
although I
like Torue better due to the simple format of the schema-definition =
file. We
have some performance issues with Hibernate and I was wondering if =
others
have moved from Hibernate to Torque for performance reasons.

Iwan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: G=F6schl,Siegfried [mailto:Siegfried.Goeschl@drei.com]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 12:19 PM
> To: torque-user@db.apache.org
> Subject: Torque 3.1 and Prepared Statements ....
>=20
>=20
> Hi folks,
>=20
> I try to convince the company I work for to use Torque=20
> instead of the textbook "use entity beans with a session=20
> facade plus manually written data transfer object and fill=20
> your first dropdown box in two weeks time". To ensure that=20
> Torque is doing well I wrote a regression test suite which=20
> works fine. The last addition was testing of Prepared=20
> Statements which showed a few problems
>=20
> +) The current implementation returns a List of=20
> VillageRecords. Is there=20
> +any reason why not to generate code which does the following=20
> conversion=20
> +automagically
>=20
> Foo.addSelectColumns( criteria );
> ... more criteria wrestling ..
> List recordList =3D FooPeer.doPSSelect( criteria );
> List result =3D FooPeer.populateObjects( recordList );
>=20
> +) There were question in the mailing list about prepared=20
> statements and=20
> +a lot of statement parsing within Oracle. I'm not pretty good at=20
> +database and my last encounter with ODBC/JDBC is long and happily=20
> +forgotten. But looking at the BasePeer.java I think what=20
> could be the=20
> +reason for that behaviour mentioned above. A conenction is=20
> taken from=20
> +the pool, a prepared statement is created from this connection, the=20
> +query is done and at the end the statement is closed. AFAIK these=20
> +forces the database to do the same parsing for the next prepared=20
> +statement again.
>=20
> Does it make sense to store the prepared statement and all=20
> the information needed to create it into a result returned=20
> from BasePeer.createPreparedStatement()?! The prepared=20
> statement could be reused, if the connection is broken the=20
> prepared statement could be recreated using a good connection=20
> and most of the parameter handling is already there?! Am I=20
> completely on the wrong track?!
>=20
> Thanks in advance,
>=20
> Siegfried Goeschl
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: torque-user-unsubscribe@db.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: torque-user-help@db.apache.org
>=20


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