Mailing-List: contact user-help@ofbiz.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@ofbiz.apache.org
Received-SPF: error (nike.apache.org: local policy)
From: "Skip" <skip@thedevers.org>
To: "OfbizUser" <user@ofbiz.apache.org>
Subject: locaopostnew vs localpostgres 
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:57:06 -0700
Message-ID: <NIEHIAPGFLPDLIACIOBOKEGNDDAA.skip@thedevers.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal

Did some testing on these and have come to the following conclusions:

1.  Postnew works with both old and new installations.  Did significant beta
testing and discovered no issues.  Exported all entities from
	localpostgres to xml files and then imported them into localpostnew
installation.  Works a charm.

2.  Inspite of the comment in fieldtypepostnew.xml, localpostgres is
significantly faster than localpostnew.  The comment says "Tip: there is no
performance differences between these three types...".  That was not my
finding.  In multiple test run (all reads), localpostres was in excess of
15% faster, and that is overall, not just the postgres part.  Given that
most of the time is spent in ofbiz code, this is very significant.  This was
using exactly the same data imported from the above mentioned xml files.

Hope this helps someone else considering this.  I am going back to
localpostgres.

Skip