jackrabbit-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcin Nowak <marcin.j.no...@comarch.com>
Subject Re: eXist
Date Tue, 24 Apr 2007 06:03:49 GMT

For testing purposes of Jackrabbit I (in fact we :)) have used attached 
classes and some junk-XML documents of size 4715740 B, testing eXist was 
not so complex, as we used provided by authors of eXist demo application 
and imported same files in same procedure as we did for Jackrabbit. 
Report on Jackrabbit performance can be found in this mailing archive, 
and results achieved in eXist - I don't have a formal report on it now - 
but you can easily reproduce those tests. Jackrabbit performance report 
was based on Jackrabbit v. 1.1.1, after that we relaunched tests again, 
based on the same procedure and Jackrabbit v. 1.2.1 - results were 
better ca. 20% - in fact tests should now be relaunched because of 
bundle persistence manager.

Looking forward for your reply :)

Marcin Nowak

Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
> On 4/23/07, Marcin Nowak <marcin.j.nowak@comarch.com> wrote:
>> But that is not the point :) anyone have an idea how to configure
>> Jackrabbit to perform like eXist?
> Let's see how well we can do. Given a quick look it seems that eXist
> will certainly beat Jackrabbit in the performance comparison, but I'd
> be interested in seeing how close we can get and what are the limiting
> factors we face.
> Could you share the test code you are using for both eXist and 
> Jackrabbit?
> BR,
> Jukka Zitting

View raw message