deltaspike-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gpetra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Performance of DeltaSpike Data
Date Thu, 01 Jun 2017 10:33:48 GMT
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| 0.043319612|
> 0.281807839| 1.308948835| 1.370535533| 8.186996818| 20.920141274|
> 93.631768475|
> | EM| 0.004557839| 0.003256631| 0.005775416| 0.004834958| 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