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 Wed, 07 Jun 2017 12:33:46 GMT
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| 0.526700787|
> 1.023574545| 1.806960223| 3.426772405| 6.969935385| 13.963582543|
> 26.785764953|
> | EM| 0.010984804| 0.021940339| 0.059921297| 0.087386918| 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| 0.048373222|
> | DS| 0.593463008| 0.741351593| 1.697058004| 6.049719288| 34.101109279|
> | DS| 101.589077365|
> | EM| 0.001385601| 0.002662861| 0.004092937| 0.108730649| 0.046299193|
> | EM| 0.106900289| 0.461147505| 1.688040769| 5.960683928| 25.604583163|
> | EM| 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| 0.053865065|
> | DS| 0.940319597| 0.643245399| 2.292716685| 9.902395587| 40.84301017 |
> | DS| 172.179435413|
> | EM| 0.001677545| 0.004168205| 0.005779986| 0.014491211| 0.031066334|
> | EM| 0.110747277| 0.4051742  | 1.925682412| 5.842606084| 23.540393571|
> | EM| 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