deltaspike-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.tho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Performance of DeltaSpike Data
Date Thu, 08 Jun 2017 11:11:48 GMT
please build DS from source, i don't think that SNAPSHOT is up to date.

2017-06-08 13:05 GMT+02:00 Schäfer, Johannes <jschaefer@psi.de>:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your great support. Now I had the time to run the tests.
> Unfortunately no improvement. :-(
> I used Mysql and H2 and both still have a significant difference.
> mysql:
> ____________________________________________________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> _____________________________
> |   | iter 10    | iter 20    | iter 40    | iter 80    | iter 160   |
> iter 320   | iter 640   | iter 1280  | iter 2560  | iter 5120   | iter
> 10240  |
> |===========================================================
> ============================================================
> =============================|
> | DS| 0.042993818| 0.070756327| 0.139015158| 0.249963317| 0.489673972|
> 1.000932095| 1.418196146| 3.396942334| 6.268094687| 12.142304859|
> 24.631240985|
> | EM| 0.016741971| 0.034018415| 0.042539175| 0.097203944| 0.15662194 |
> 0.32694476 | 0.665341891| 1.582051703| 2.602520533| 5.710082816 |
> 10.856276852|
>
> h2:
> ____________________________________________________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> __________________________
> |   | iter 10    | iter 20    | iter 40    | iter 80    | iter 160   |
> iter 320   | iter 640  | iter 1280  | iter 2560  | iter 5120  | iter 10240 |
> |===========================================================
> ============================================================
> ==========================|
> | DS| 0.007259847| 0.009839833| 0.024182004| 0.040194493| 0.037355253|
> 0.038992501| 0.15695646| 0.157184542| 0.277937182| 0.575950893| 0.848326297|
> | EM| 7.12756E-4 | 7.15797E-4 | 0.0035079  | 0.001897262| 0.003144109|
> 0.007000594| 0.01269694| 0.024183904| 0.037443446| 0.108577248| 0.217664259|
>
> I used version 1.8.1-SNAPSHOT for testing.
> See https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_
> cdi_jpa_data_ds_project_template
>
> Grüße
> Johannes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Andraschko [mailto:andraschko.thomas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 10:36 AM
> To: users@deltaspike.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Performance of DeltaSpike Data
>
> I did a major improvement and in my tests, both plain JPA and DS Data are
> now very similar.
> Would be great if you could provide the new numbers.
>
> 2017-06-07 14:33 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko <andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
> >:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > could you please try to run your test again against the github master?
> > I already did a small improvement and refactored a little bit on the
> > weekend.
> >
> > 2017-06-06 8:54 GMT+02:00 Schäfer, Johannes <jschaefer@psi.de>:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> So after the a long weekend, I'm back with my results.
> >> For the write, findByPK and findAll tests I get now good numbers.
> >> See:
> >> https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_cdi_jpa_data_
> >> ds_project_template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/
> >> metals/futurelab/repo/benchmark/SaveTest.java
> >> https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_cdi_jpa_data_
> >> ds_project_template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/
> >> metals/futurelab/repo/benchmark/ReadTest.java
> >> https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_cdi_jpa_data_
> >> ds_project_template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/
> >> metals/futurelab/repo/benchmark/ReadAllTest.java
> >>
> >> The difference between delta spike and plain EM are just a few
> >> percent, in both directions ;-) .
> >>
> >> But I wrote a new test case were I try to find entities by an query.
> >> https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_cdi_jpa_data_
> >> ds_project_template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/
> >> metals/futurelab/repo/benchmark/ReadQueryTest.java
> >> So I compare
> >>             TypedQuery< Material > query = eml.createQuery(
> >>                 "SELECT m FROM Material m WHERE grade = :grade AND
> >> width = :width AND thickness = :thickness",
> >>                 Material.class );
> >>             query.setParameter( "grade", "AAA" );
> >>             query.setParameter( "width", 5 );
> >>             query.setParameter( "thickness", 5. ); List< Material >
> >> mats = query.getResultList();
> >>
> >> to
> >> List< Material > mats = matRepo.findByGradeAndWidthAndThickness(
> >> "AAA", 5, 5. );
> >>
> >> Here again the difference is quite high.
> >> |   | iter 10    | iter 20    | iter 40    | iter 80    | iter 160   |
> >> iter 320   | iter 640   | iter 1280  | iter 2560  | iter 5120   | iter
> >> 10240  |
> >> |===========================================================
> >> ============================================================
> >> =============================|
> >> | DS| 0.03988012 | 0.151870613| 0.144881044| 0.270389952|
> >> | DS| 0.526700787|
> >> 1.023574545| 1.806960223| 3.426772405| 6.969935385| 13.963582543|
> >> 26.785764953|
> >> | EM| 0.010984804| 0.021940339| 0.059921297| 0.087386918|
> >> | EM| 0.171045079|
> >> 0.375059016| 0.747171594| 1.560946145| 2.968347174| 6.446844753 |
> >> 12.361550486|
> >>
> >> So as you can see the DeltaSpike implementation needs at least the
> >> double amount of time.
> >>
> >> Any hints for improving the performance?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Johannes
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Schäfer, Johannes [mailto:jschaefer@psi.de]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 2:27 PM
> >> To: users@deltaspike.apache.org
> >> Subject: RE: Performance of DeltaSpike Data
> >>
> >> Right. Copy and paste error.
> >> I added also a flush to the EM test.
> >> Now I have similar numbers.
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> ______________________________
> >> |   | iter 10    | iter 20    | iter 40    | iter 80    | iter 160   |
> >> iter 320   | iter 640   | iter 1280  | iter 2560  | iter 5120   | iter
> >> 10240   |
> >> |====================================================================
> >> |===
> >> |====================================================================
> >> |===
> >> |=======|
> >> | DS| 0.001588214| 0.004130191| 0.007351854| 0.014062036|
> >> | DS| 0.048373222| 0.593463008| 0.741351593| 1.697058004|
> >> | DS| 6.049719288| 34.101109279| 101.589077365|
> >> | EM| 0.001385601| 0.002662861| 0.004092937| 0.108730649|
> >> | EM| 0.046299193| 0.106900289| 0.461147505| 1.688040769|
> >> | EM| 5.960683928| 25.604583163| 106.688041149|
> >>
> >> It's a little bit strange for me, why I have to compare
> >> EntityPersistenceRepository.save with a em.persist + em.flush. I
> >> would expect that an simple EntityPersistenceRepository.save don't
> >> have a flush (there is a separate EntityPersistenceRepository.
> saveAndFlush).
> >>
> >> When I do a run with EntityPersistenceRepository.saveAndFlush I get
> >> the following numbers.
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> ______________________________
> >> |   | iter 10    | iter 20    | iter 40    | iter 80    | iter 160   |
> >> iter 320   | iter 640   | iter 1280  | iter 2560  | iter 5120   | iter
> >> 10240   |
> >> |====================================================================
> >> |===
> >> |====================================================================
> >> |===
> >> |=======|
> >> | DS| 0.001703015| 0.003457728| 0.008079817| 0.019099994|
> >> | DS| 0.053865065| 0.940319597| 0.643245399| 2.292716685|
> >> | DS| 9.902395587| 40.84301017 | 172.179435413|
> >> | EM| 0.001677545| 0.004168205| 0.005779986| 0.014491211|
> >> | EM| 0.031066334| 0.110747277| 0.4051742  | 1.925682412|
> >> | EM| 5.842606084| 23.540393571| 132.817886521|
> >>
> >> So I have the feeling that there is still something wrong.
> >>
> >> Thanks to Gerhard for his additional hints.
> >> I committed all changes to the github repo.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Johannes
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Gerhard Petracek [mailto:gpetracek@apache.org]
> >> Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 1:21 PM
> >> To: users@deltaspike.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Performance of DeltaSpike Data
> >>
> >> @johannes:
> >> as mentioned yesterday you have to move EntityTransaction#begin and
> >> EntityTransaction#commit into the for-loop.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> gerhard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-06-01 12:58 GMT+02:00 Thomas Andraschko
> >> <andraschko.thomas@gmail.com
> >> >:
> >>
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > ~1 year ago i did many optimizations in the data module and AFAIR
> >> > DS Data was only a little bit slower.
> >> > After i compared my testcase with a benchmark from a user, the big
> >> > different came from the transaction handling which was different in
> >> > both testcases.
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Thomas
> >> >
> >> > 2017-06-01 12:33 GMT+02:00 Gerhard Petracek <gpetracek@apache.org>:
> >> >
> >> > > hi johannes,
> >> > >
> >> > > after refactoring your initial code to ds-test-control i saw e.g.
> >> > > ~6s vs 7,5s for 2560 iterations.
> >> > > i'll compare my local version with your new version (mentioned in
> >> > > your mail).
> >> > >
> >> > > regards,
> >> > > gerhard
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2017-06-01 11:35 GMT+02:00 Schäfer, Johannes <jschaefer@psi.de>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > My company is thinking about using DeltaSpike Data. But before
> >> > > > we integrate this into our development I was asked to prepare
> >> > > > some
> >> > > benchmarks,
> >> > > > comparing the usage of DeltaSpike Data with the usage of a
> >> > > > plain EntityManager.
> >> > > > I prepared some benchmarks and I was surprised that there is
a
> >> > > > big difference in the write performance. I already got some
> >> > > > hints in the
> >> > > delta
> >> > > > spike irc channel, but the performance is still bad.
> >> > > > Based on a template from os890 I implemented my tests and
> >> > > > prepared a github project.
> >> > > > https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_
> >> > cdi_jpa_data_ds_project_
> >> > > > template
> >> > > > Basically I'm talking about this test:
> >> > > > https://github.com/johannesschaefer/javaee_jsf_
> >> > cdi_jpa_data_ds_project_
> >> > > > template/blob/master/src/test/java/de/psi/metals/futurelab/
> >> > > > repo/benchmark/SaveTest.java
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It just saves an entity into a DB in a loop. Depending of the
> >> > > > number of iterations the difference is quite big.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > SaveTest
> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > > > _____________________________
> >> > > > |   | iter 10    | iter 20    | iter 40    | iter 80    | iter
160
> >>  |
> >> > > > iter 320   | iter 640   | iter 1280  | iter 2560  | iter 5120
  |
> >> iter
> >> > > > 10240  |
> >> > > > |===========================================================
> >> > > > ============================================================
> >> > > > =============================|
> >> > > > | DS| 0.004911746| 0.03597043 | 0.015765787| 0.016966639|
> >> > > > | DS| 0.043319612|
> >> > > > 0.281807839| 1.308948835| 1.370535533| 8.186996818|
> >> > > > 20.920141274| 93.631768475|
> >> > > > | EM| 0.004557839| 0.003256631| 0.005775416| 0.004834958|
> >> > > > | EM| 0.028243393|
> >> > > > 0.035484616| 0.038600595| 0.088904458| 0.339158674| 0.745850523
> >> > > > |
> >> > > > 0.853543234 |
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Also the difference between a run with 5120 and 10240 iteration
> >> > > > is not just the double amount of time, it is more than 4 times
> more.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Do you have some hints to me what I'm doing wrong there?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards
> >> > > > Johannes
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message